A 1.5 hrs UBC Library instructional workshop was presented by the UBC Science and Engineering librarians, Eugene Barsky and Kevin Lindstrom. Topics covered were: information on using Google, Google Scholar, and a comparison of Google/Google Scholar with Compendex (major engineering database).

Trabajo previamente presentado en forma oral (TI-017), en parte, en el XXIV Congreso Estudiantil Colombiano de Investigación Médica (XXIV CECIM) y I Congreso Científico de COODESURIS (I CC COODESURIS), 15-18 de mayo de 2013, Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia, donde obtuvo el Premio "Segundo Lugar de Trabajos de Investigación". / The citation based indicators are recognized by the scientific community to assess the quality of scientific journals. Colombia has a rating system called the National Journal magazines Index (IBN) / Publindex. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of the Colombian health journals according to Google ScholarMetrics (GSM), SciELO, and SCOPUS, compared with the IBN classification for 2007-2011. In analyzing journals by GSM H index, we find that among the worst journals classified "C" by Publindex, there are publications with higher H5 index and H5 median than those top-ranked journals by IBN as "B" and "A2". There are journals such as The Colombian Anesthesiology that without being in IBN, has SciELO higher impact factor than several IBN "A1" journals. There are indexed journals in Scopus which despite being quartile 3 (Q3) are rated "A2" by IBN but they are Q4 journals classified as "A1" by IBN. This shows that Publindex classification is not consistent with journal impact indicators in three systems: GSM, Scopus, and SciELO, as it has been previously suggested by other authors. It is required to improve the Publindex classification and such classification should take into account citation and impact parameters so that the quality reflected in international indicators would be consistent with the national classification. / Revisión por pares

Electronic availability of information resources has increasingly become an important part of academic libraries everyday vocation. This is a fact that puts impetus on the libraries to know more about the way in which electronic information is being dispersed and handled. This thesis aims to comparatively evaluate Uppsala university library´s own metadata system Summon with the publicly available equivalent Google scholar. The evaluation is based on Péter Jacsó´s theories on database evaluation which concretely puts focus on Summon and Google scholar via the use and application of ten different criteria. The uses of precision and relevance criteria were also implemented as additional evaluation tools. The results indicate that Google scholar at the moment has to be seen as a necessary complement in retrieving electronic information due to the fact that Summon is not yet fully functioning on all levels. This is a two years master’s thesis in Archive, Library and Museum studies.

The purpose of this thesis is to evaluate and compare the retrieval effectiveness of two search engines on the Internet: Svensk Medicin and Google Scholar. Svensk Medicin is a medicine-specific search engine and Google Scholar specialises in indexing scholarly material. A set of 20 questions in four categories were used to conduct the searches with the search engines. Genuine medical information needs were selected from a question collection provided by the television program Fråga doktorn. The relevance of the first 10 retrieved documents was judged by using a binary scale and the measure used was precision. An analysis on average precision for all the search questions and an average measure was calculated (macro precision). Results for average precision over all the search questions and a mean average precision is also presented (micro precision and map). These measures shows which search engine performs best for single queries and how the relevant documents spread among the displayed results. The occurrence of duplicates and error pages was noted, because they also show how the search engine performs. Svensk Medicin is performing better than Google Scholar on the single queries and Svensk Medicin also retrieves the highest number of relevant documents. Methodology is discussed close since the experimental design affects the result. / Uppsatsnivå: D

This paper is a comparing study of the retrieval effectiveness of the search engines Google, Google Scholar and Scirus. The aim is to find out how good they are at retrieving relevant academic material in the research-field of Library and Information science. The thirty search questions where based on actual information needs collected from exams within the field of Library and Information Science. This method was used to prevent that none of the search engines were given an advantage because of construction of the information needs. The first twenty retrieved documents on the retrieval lists are examined for academic content and relevance. The methods of measuring the effectiveness of the search engines are Precision, Relative Recall and Jaccards Index. Academic content both relevant and non-relevant material for the information need is judged and the result is presented in percent. Binary scale is used for judging the relevance of the retrieved documents. Guiding principles are being followed when it comes to judging whether a document contains academic content or not. Citation only, book links, inactive, duplicate and mirror links are all considered as being irrelevant. Scirus gets the highest scores, thereafter Google and Google Scholar gets the lowest score. All three search engines don’t retrieve the same relevant material frequently so it could be advisable to use all three for greater coverage.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the three search engines Web of Science, Google Scholar and MEDLINE in regards of recovery efficiency and the overlap of relevant documents when it comes to information searching for academic purposes. Furthermore, it raises the question whether freely available search engines and licensed search engines are interchangeable with each other. The empirical data in this study were collected through searches conducted in the three search engines Web of Science, Google Scholar and MEDLINE. Twenty search queries were used and the first twenty retrieved documents for each query were examined for relevance using previously designed criteria. The documents were scored by a binary relevancy scale and thereafter a precision value for each search engine was calculated. The overlap of retrieved relevant document in all three search engines were also calculated using Jaccard’s Index. The results of this study showed that Web of Science was the search engine that had the highest precision value, 0.346 and that the largest overlap was between MEDLINE and Web of Science with a value of 0.112. / Program: Bibliotekarie

This study evaluates the content coverage of Google Scholar and three commercial databases (Arts & Humanities Citation Index, Bibliography of the History of Art and Art Full Text/Art Index Retrospective) on the subject of art history. Each database is tested using a bibliography method and evaluated based on Péter Jacsó’s scope criteria for online databases. Of the 472 articles tested, Google Scholar indexed the smallest number of citations (35%), outshone by the Arts & Humanities Citation Index which covered 73% of the test set. This content evaluation also examines specific aspects of coverage to find that in comparison to the other databases, Google Scholar provides consistent coverage over the time range tested (1975-2008) and considerable access to article abstracts (56%). Google Scholar failed, however, to fully index the most frequently cited art periodical in the test set, the Artforum International. Finally, Google Scholar’s total citation count is inflated by a significant percentage (23%) of articles which include duplicate, triplicate or multiple versions of the same record.

Context: The Internet has become a vital channel for disseminating and accessing scientific literature for both the academic and industrial research needs. Nowadays, everyone has wide access to scientific literature repositories, which comprise of both “white” and “Grey” literature. The “Grey” literature, as opposed to “white” literature, is non-peer reviewed scientific information that is not available using commercial information sources such as IEEE or ACM. A large number of software engineering researchers are undertaking systematic literature reviews (SLRs) to investigate empirical evidence in software engineering. The key reason to include grey literature during information synthesis is to minimize the risk of any bias in the publication. Using the state of the art non-commercial databases that index information, the researchers can make the rigorous process of searching empirical studies in SLRs easier. This study explains the evidence of Grey literature while performing synthesis in Systematic Literature Reviews. Objectives: The goals of this thesis work are, 1. To identify the extent of usage of Grey Literature in synthesis during systematic literature reviews. 2. To investigate if non-commercial information sources primarily Google Scholar are sufficient for retrieving primary studies for SLRs. Methods: The work consists of a systematic literature review of SLRs and is a tertiary study and meta-analysis. The systematic literature review was conducted on 138 SLRs’ published through 2003 until 2012 (June). The article sources used are IEEEXplore, ACM Digital Library, Springer-Link and Science Direct. Results: For each of the selected article sources such as ACM, IEEEXplore, Springer-link and Science Direct, we have presented results, which describe the extent of the usage of Grey literature. The qualitative results discuss various strategies for systematic evaluation of the Grey literature during systematic literature review. The quantitative results comprise of charts and tables, showing the extent of Grey literature usage. The results from analysis of Google Scholar database describe the total number of primary studies that we are able to find using only Google Scholar database. Conclusion: From the analysis of 138 Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs’), we conclude that the evidence of Grey literature in SLRs is around 9%. The percentage of Grey literature sources used in information synthesis sections of SLRs is around 93.2%. We were able to retrieve around 96 % of primary studies using Google Scholar database. We conclude that Google Scholar can be a choice for retrieving published studies however; it lacks detailed search options to target wider pool of articles. We also conclude that Grey literature is widely available in this age of information. We have provided guidelines in the form of strategies for systematic evaluation of Grey literature. / Sammanhang: Internet har blivit en viktig kanal för att sprida och få tillgång vetenskaplig litteratur för både akademiska och industriella forskningsbehov. Numera har alla bred tillgång till vetenskaplig litteratur förråd, som omfattar både "vit" och "grå" litteratur. Den "grå" litteratur, som motsats till "vita" litteratur, är icke-vetenskapligt granskad vetenskaplig information som inte är tillgänglig med kommersiella informationskällor såsom IEEE och ACM. Ett stort antal forskare software engineering genomför systematiska litteraturöversikter (systemkameror) för att undersöka empiriska bevis programvaruteknik. Den viktigaste orsaken till att omfatta grå litteratur under Information syntes är att minimera risken för att partiskhet i publikationen. Använda toppmoderna icke-kommersiella databaser som indexerar information kan forskarna göra rigorösa processen att söka empiriska studier i systemkameror lättare. Denna studie förklarar bevis på grå litteratur när de utför syntes i systematiska litteraturöversikter. Mål: Målen med detta examensarbete är, 1. För att identifiera omfattningen av användningen av Grey litteratur i syntes under systematisk litteratur recensioner. 2. För att undersöka om icke-kommersiella informationskällor främst Google Scholar är tillräckliga för att hämta primära studier för systemkameror. Metoder: Verket består av en systematisk litteraturgenomgång av systemkameror och är en tertiär studie och metaanalys. Den systematiska litteraturstudie genomfördes på 138 systemkameror "publiceras via 2003 till 2012 (juni). Artikeln används källorna är IEEEXplore, ACM Digital Library, Springer-Link och Science Direct. Resultat: För vart och ett av de utvalda artikeln källor såsom ACM, IEEEXplore, Springer-länk och Science Direct, har vi presenterat resultat, som beskriver omfattningen av användningen av grå litteratur. De kvalitativa resultaten diskuterar olika strategier för systematisk utvärdering av grå litteratur under systematisk litteraturöversikt. De kvantitativa resultaten består av diagram och tabeller, som visar omfattningen av Grey litteratur användning. Resultaten från analys av Google Scholar-databasen beskriver det totala antalet primära studier som vi kan hitta med enbart Google Scholar databas. Slutsats: Av analysen av 138 systematiska litteraturöversikter (systemkameror) kan vi dra slutsatsen att bevisen för grå litteratur i systemkameror är cirka 9%. Den procentuella andelen Grey litteraturkällor som används i avsnitt informations syntes av systemkameror är cirka 93,2%. Vi kunde hämta omkring 96% av primära studier med Google Scholar databas. Vi drar slutsatsen att Google Scholar kan vara ett val för hämta publicerade studier dock, det saknar detaljerade sökalternativ för att rikta större pool av artiklar. Vi avslutar också att grå litteratur är allmänt tillgänglig i denna tid av information. Vi har försett riktlinjer i form av strategier för systematisk utvärdering av Grey litteratur. / Affan Yasin : Skype id (affan.yasin) Ijlal Hasnain: Skype id (bluesols)

No description available.

M.Phil / Citing is the process by which scholars give recognition to research used by another academic researcher. Citation resources are tools used by academic scholars for keeping track of who did what research and the impact of the research within the discipline. Citation analysis is therefore an attempt to measure the impact and contribution of a study to the body of knowledge and research. Citation tracking and citation analysis is facilitated by making use of information resources which specialize in citations and tools for conducting citation analysis. The citation resource by The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), Web of Science (WOS), was traditionally the citation tool of choice of academics for more than 40 years. The arrival in 2004 of Scopus, a fee-based citation resource, and Google Scholar (GS), a citation resource available for free and accessible via the Web, presented WOS with competition. The prolific growth of the citation resources created new opportunities for academics in citation tracking and citation analysis. The question of which citation resource to use in the process of tracking citations and conducting citation analysis posed a challenge to librarians and information professionals at academic institutions. It became essential to establish which citation resource was not only most relevant to use for which subject discipline, but which was the most cost-effective with the advent of shrinking library budgets. Therefore the need arose for citation resources to be compared with the aim of establishing whether the newcomers Scopus and GS are substitutes for or complementary to the traditional WOS. The objectives of this study included comparing WOS, Scopus and GS in order to determine whether evaluation criteria existed for citation resources, to define scholarly environmental sciences journals within a South African context, to determine which citation resource presented the most comprehensive citation coverage of the South African scholarly environmental sciences journals, to determine whether GS could be considered a substitute for the fee-based citation resources WOS and Scopus, and to determine how the content of the exported data for the journal sample population compared in terms of content completeness and quality. The research study consisted of a detailed literature review, followed by an empirical component using a comparative research design and the technique of purposive non-probability sampling in order to define the sample population for the study. The South African scholarly environmental sciences journals internationally accredited during the period 2004-2008 were chosen as the sample target population. The study consisted of a pilot study and three measuring instruments that were compiled based on the literature review. The results of the macro-level evaluation established that Scopus surpasses both WOS and GS. On the other hand, the micro-level evaluation concluded that WOS surpasses Scopus and GS. The content verification process conducted determined that Scopus and WOS both surpass GS. These findings were presented at the 12th Annual World Wide Web Applications conference in September 2010. The study was able to establish that GS is not a substitute for WOS and/or Scopus for the South African scholarly environmental sciences journals. In addition, it was concluded that GS can be used as a supplementary citation resource to the fee-based citation resources WOS and Scopus. It was further determined that the citation resource Scopus can be considered a substitute for WOS, which was traditionally the citation resource of choice of academic researchers.