Search results

To describe a small‐scale quantitative evaluation of the scholarly information search engine, Google Scholar.

Google Scholar's ability to retrieve scholarly information was compared to that of three popular search engines: Ask.com, Google and Yahoo! Test queries were presented to all four search engines and the following measures were used to compare them: precision; Vaughan's Quality of Result Ranking; relative recall; and Vaughan's Ability to Retrieve Top Ranked Pages.

Significant differences were found in the ability to retrieve top ranked pages between Ask.com and Google and between Ask.com and Google Scholar for scientific queries. No other significant differences were found between the search engines. This may be due to the relatively small sample size of eight queries. Results suggest that, for scientific queries, Google Scholar has the highest precision, relative recall and Ability to Retrieve Top Ranked Pages. However, it achieved the lowest score for these three measures for non‐scientific queries. The best overall score for all four measures was achieved by Google. Vaughan's Quality of Result Ranking found a significant correlation between Google and scientific queries.

As with any search engine evaluation, the results pertain only to performance at the time of the study and must be considered in light of any subsequent changes in the search engine's configuration or functioning. Also, the relatively small sample size limits the scope of the study's findings.

These results suggest that, although Google Scholar may prove useful to those in scientific disciplines, further development is necessary if it is to be useful to the scholarly community in general.

This is a preliminary study in applying the accepted performance measures of precision and recall to Google Scholar. It provides information specialists and users with an objective evaluation of Google Scholar's abilities across both scientific and non‐scientific disciplines and paves the way for a larger study.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the relative effectiveness of a range of search tools in finding open access (OA) versions of peer reviewed academic articles on the world wide web.

Some background is given on why and how academics may make their articles OA and how they may be found by others searching for them. Google, Google Scholar, OAIster and OpenDOAR were used to try to locate OA versions of peer reviewed journal articles drawn from three subjects (ecology, economics and sociology).

Of the 2,519 articles, 967 were found to have OA versions on the world wide web. Google and Google Scholar found 76.84 per cent of them. The results from OpenDOAR and OAIster were disappointing, but some improvements are noted. Only in economics could OAIster and OpenDOAR be considered relative successes.

The paper shows the relative effectiveness of the search tools in these three subjects. The results indicate that those wanting to find OA articles in these subjects, for the moment at least should use the general search engines Google and Google Scholar first rather than OpenDOAR or OAIster.

The purpose of this article is to explore and expose some of the many facets of Google Scholar™ that have set the academic library world on edge. Google Scholar™'s impact on reference and information literacy is considered, as are the challenges it poses for the library's web site.

Includes opinions in a point/counterpoint format, as well as citations to recently published literature.

Provides arguments about ignoring or leveraging the teachings of Scholar Google™ in conjunction with teaching the library's various subscription databases available through the library's web site.

This paper fills an identified information need by offering original, practical advice to librarians.

This paper aims to discuss how to use Google Wave and Docs as a group collaboration tool. Group and team projects can be stressful, particularly when distance and deadlines are part of the scenario. Using Google Wave and Docs can help everyone maintain access to the project anywhere and anytime. This paper also seeks to describe and suggest ways to use Google tools to keep documents organized and communications flowing well. It also aims to discuss using Google tools as part of project management.

The paper uses a series of cases studies in which the author has been directly involved. The case studies are accompanied by tips.

The paper reveals that the use of Google Wave and Docs for group collaboration can be very successful.

Collaboration teams can possibly save time and energy with Google tools.

Many groups are interested in how they can actually use Google Wave to collaborate. The paper includes case studies to illuminate some possibilities.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an introduction to Google's new service, Google⁺.

The paper provides general descriptions of the elements of Google⁺.

The paper explores the potential for the use of Google⁺ by librarians.

Google⁺ is a new service that is already being looked at and used by librarians. This paper provides brief descriptions of the elements of Google⁺, as well as helpful tips on how to find other librarians, to gain the most potential out of this service.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate issues surrounding the Google Book settlement in 2009, and its relevance to libraries by general discussion and examples from library practice.

A set of projections and speculations that are both conceptual and practical in nature, based on early reactions and comments about this development.

There are many philosophical and moral objections to the consequences of the Google Book settlement, and that the practical effects for academic libraries could be both positive and/or negative. The practical examples of such outcomes are designed to help clarify the implications for library and information practitioners and generate further debate.

The fact that the Book settlement is a legal arrangement between parties in a civil court makes in depth research analysis of a public nature very difficult – which is in itself one of the main themes of the paper.

The teasing out of the real‐life consequences of the settlement are intended be helpful to the library practitioner.

This paper tries to offer an early insight into an important new development in information retrieval history from the point of view of academic librarians, in contrast to much contemporary comment, which has come from authors and rights holders.

Many recent chapters have investigated whether data from internet search engines such as Google can help improve nowcasts or short-term forecasts of macroeconomic variables. These chapters construct variables based on Google searches and use them as explanatory variables in regression models. We add to this literature by nowcasting using dynamic model selection (DMS) methods which allow for model switching between time-varying parameter regression models. This is potentially useful in an environment of coefficient instability and over-parameterization which can arise when forecasting with Google variables. We extend the DMS methodology by allowing for the model switching to be controlled by the Google variables through what we call “Google probabilities”: instead of using Google variables as regressors, we allow them to determine which nowcasting model should be used at each point in time. In an empirical exercise involving nine major monthly US macroeconomic variables, we find DMS methods to provide large improvements in nowcasting. Our use of Google model probabilities within DMS often performs better than conventional DMS methods.

This study offers an in-depth examination of Google Bard, an advanced artificial intelligence chatbot created by Google, focusing specifically on its potential impact on academic research. This discussion aims to comprehensively explore the features of Google Bard, highlighting its capabilities in data management, facilitating collaborative discussions, and enhancing accessibility to complex research. In addition to the aforementioned positive characteristics, we will also delve into the limitations and ethical considerations associated with this innovative device. The functionality of the system is constrained by the limitations imposed by its pre-established algorithms and training data. In addition, there are significant concerns regarding data privacy, potential biases in its responses stemming from its training data, and the wider societal implications associated with a heavy reliance on machine-generated content. Ensuring responsible and ethical utilization of Bard necessitates Google's provision of transparent communication regarding its development process. In light of the prominent functionalities demonstrated by Google Bard, it is imperative for researchers to engage in a rigorous examination of the information it presents, thereby safeguarding against the inadvertent propagation of misinformation or biased viewpoints. This will lay the groundwork for its effective integration into the academic research methodology.

Purpose – To examine corporate social responsibility in cyberspace within the context of the experience of Google Corporation in China in order to provide greater understanding of the complexities that corporations encounter when operating across cyber borders.Design/methodology/approach – The research is grounded in the theoretical debate: The Internet as democratic and universal space versus the Internet as autocratic and sovereign space. Historical analysis is drawn from the case of Google Corporation in China.Findings – Freedom in cyberspace is more likely to be advanced universally with a collective commitment to corporate social responsibility in the information technology sector.Research limitations/implications – The study provides insights into the appropriate balance between the ethical responsibilities of the firm and its need to compete and survive in the highly competitive information age.Originality/value of chapter – The case of Google Corporation in China offers a venue for further discussion on the ethical role of transnational information technology corporations and their improvements in fostering human rights and free enterprise in cyberspace.

With the rise of alternate discovery services, such as Google Scholar, in conjunction with the increase in open access content, researchers have the option to bypass academic libraries when they search for and retrieve scholarly information. This state of affairs implies that academic libraries exist in competition with these alternate services and with the patrons who use them, and as a result, may be disintermediated from the scholarly information seeking and retrieval process. Drawing from decision and game theory, bounded rationality, information seeking theory, citation theory, and social computing theory, this study investigates how academic librarians are responding as competitors to changing scholarly information seeking and collecting practices. Bibliographic data was collected in 2010 from a systematic random sample of references on CiteULike.org and analyzed with three years of bibliometric data collected from Google Scholar. Findings suggest that although scholars may choose to bypass libraries when they seek scholarly information, academic libraries continue to provide a majority of scholarly documentation needs through open access and institutional repositories. Overall, the results indicate that academic librarians are playing the scholarly communication game competitively.