바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기
 

Journal Of Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science

  • P-ISSN1229-2435
  • E-ISSN2799-4767
  • KCI

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.25 No.3

PDF Citation Share

An Investigation of Information Usefulness of Google Scholar in Comparison with Web of Science

Journal Of Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science / Journal Of Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science, (P)1229-2435; (E)2799-4767
2014, v.25 no.3, pp.215-234
https://doi.org/10.14699/kbiblia.2014.25.3.215
Kim, Hyunjung
Kim,, H. (2014). An Investigation of Information Usefulness of Google Scholar in Comparison with Web of Science. , 25(3), 215-234, https://doi.org/10.14699/kbiblia.2014.25.3.215

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether Google Scholar (GS) can substitute Web of Science (WoS) for those who don't have access to the subscription-based indexing service and if users feel GS is useful for scholarly information. To achieve the research purpose, the study evaluates both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the two databases. The major results through statistical analysis show that GS indexes much more records and citations for LIS journals than WoS(p < .01), but users' feedback about GS is not better than those about WoS.

keywords
정보 유용성, 인용 분석, 인용색인, 데이터베이스 평가, 이용자평가

Reference

1.

Lopez-Cozar, Eilio Delgado, Nicolas Robinson-Garcia, and Daniel Torres-Salinas. (2014). The Google Scholar Experiment: How to Index False Papers and Manipulate Bibliometric Indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 446-454. 10.1002/asi.23056.

2.

Lopez-Illescas, Carmen, Felix de Moya-Anegon, and Henk F. Moed. (2008). Coverage and Citation Impact of Oncological Journals in the Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 304-316. 10.1016/j.joi.2008.08.001.

3.

Meho, Lokman I. and Yvonne Rogers. (2008). Citation Counting, Citation Ranking, and h-index of Human-Computer Interaction Researchers: A Comparison of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(11), 1711-1726. 10.1002/asi.20874.

4.

Mikki, Susanne. (2010). Comparing Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for Earth Sciences. Scientometrics, 82, 321-331. 10.1007/s11192-009-0038-6.

5.

Mingers, John and Evangelia A.E.C.G. Lipitakis. (2010). Counting the Citations: a Comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the Field of Business and Management. Scientometrics, 85, 613-625. 10.1007/s11192-010-0270-0.

6.

Ong, Chorng-Shyong, Shu-Chen Chang, and Shwn-Meei Lee. (2013). Website Satisfaction Dimensions: Factors between Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction. Information Development, 29(4), 299-308. 10.1177/0266666912466400.

7.

Ortega, Jose Luis, and Isidro F. Aguillo. (2013). Institutional and Country Collaboration in an Online Service of Scientific Profiles: Google Scholar Citations. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 394-403. 10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.007.

8.

Thompson Reuters. Eigenfactor Metrics in JCR Web: Frequently Asked Questions.

9.

Franceschet, Massimo. (2010). A Comparison of Bibliometric Indicators for Computer Science Scholars and Journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 83, 243-258. 10.1007/s11192-009-0021-2.

10.

Franceschet, Massimo. (2010). Ten Good Reasons to Use the Eigenfactor Metrics. Information Processing and Management, 46, 555-558. 10.1016/j.ipm.2010.01.001.

11.

Garcia-Perez, Miguel A. (2010). Accuracy and Completeness of Publication and Citation Records in the Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar: A Case Study for the Computation of h Indicies in Psycholo. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(10), 2070-2085. 10.1002/asi.21372.

12.

Gavel, Ylva and Lars Iselid. (2008). Web of Science and Scopus: A Journal Title Overlap Study. Online Information Review, 32(1), 8-21. 10.1108/14684520810865958.

13.

Gorraiz, Juan and Christian Schloegl. (2008). A Bibliographic Analysis of Pharmacology and Pharmacy Journals: Scopus versus Web of Science. Journal of Information Science, 34(5), 715-725. 10.1177/0165551507086991.

14.

Jokic, Maja, Kresimir Zauder, and Srebrenka Letina. (2010). Croatian Scholarly Productivity 1991-2005 Measured by Journals Indexed in Web of Science. Scientometrics, 83, 375-395. 10.1007/s11192-009-0071-5.

15.

Harzing, Ann-Wil. Publish or Perish.

16.

Harzing, Anne-Wil. (2013). A Preliminary Test of Google Scholar as a Source for Citation Data: A Longitudinal Study of Nobel Prize Winners. Scientometrics, 94, 1057-1075. 10.1007/s11192-012-0777-7.

17.

Harzing, Anne-Wil. (2014). A Longitudinal Study of Google Scholar Coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics, 98, 565-575. 10.1007/s11192-013-0975-y.

18.

Leydesdorff, Loet, Stephen Carley, and Ismael Rafols. (2013). Global Maps of Science Based on the New Web-of-Science Categories. Scientometrics, 94, 589-593. 10.1007/s11192-012-0784-8.

19.

Abrizah, A., A.N. Zainab, K. Kiran, and R.G. Raj. (2013). LIS Journals Scientific Impact and Subject Categorization: A Comparison between GS and Scopus. Scientometrics, 94, 721-740. 10.1007/s11192-012-0813-7.

20.

Amara, Nabil and Rejean Landry. (2012). Counting Citations in the Field of Business and Management: Why Use Google Scholar Rather Than the Web of Science. Scientometrics, 93, 553-581. 10.1007/s11192-012-0729-2.

21.

Bergstrom, Carl T., and Jevin D. West. (2008). Assessing Citations with the Eigenfactor Metrics. Neurology, 71(23), 1850-1851. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000338904.37585.66.

22.

Carcia, J.A., Rosa Rodriguez-Sanchez, J. Fdez-Valdivia, Nicholas Robinson-Garcia, and Daniel Torres-Salinas. (2014). Best-in-class and Strategic Benchmarking of Scientific Subject Categories of Web of Science in 2010. Scientometrics, 99, 615-630. 10.1007/s11192-013-1000-1.

23.

Davis, Philip M.. (2008). Eigenfactor: Does the Principle of Repeated Improvement Result in Better Estimates than Raw Citation Counts?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(13), 2186-2188. 10.1002/asi.20943.

24.

Cothran, Tanya. (2011). Google Scholar Acceptance and Use among Graduate Students: A Quantitative Study. Library & Information Science Research, 33, 293-301. 10.1016/j.lisr.2011.02.001.

25.

Crespo, Juan A., Neus Herranz, Yunrong Li, and Javier Ruiz-Castillo. (2014). The Effect on Citation Inequality of Differences in Citation Practices at the Web of Science Subject Category Level. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1244-1256. 10.1002/asi.23006.

26.

Davis, Fred D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. 10.2307/249008.

27.

De Winter, Joost C.F., Amir A. Zadpoor, and Dimitra Dodou.. (2014). The Expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: A Longitudinal Study. Scientometrics, 98, 1547-1565. 10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2.

28.

유사라;. (2000). Web 정보서비스 평가를 위한 기존 측정지표 분석 Ⅰ. 한국문헌정보학회지, 34(3), 133-156.

29.

김완종;김혜선;현미환;. (2013). 온라인 과학기술정보 서비스 품질에 대한 기대수준과 성과에 대한 지각수준이 이용자 만족도와 충성도에 미치는 영향. 정보관리학회지, 30(3), 207-228. 10.3743/KOSIM.2013.30.3.207.

30.

심원식;. (2012). 빅딜, 오픈액세스, 구글학술검색과 대학도서관의 전자학술정보구독. 정보관리학회지, 29(4), 143-163. 10.3743/KOSIM.2012.29.4.143.

31.

유사라. 정보품질과 정보서비스 평가론.

Journal Of Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science

e-Submission OA Policy