L
Título: For Non-expert Clinical Searches, Google Scholar Results are Older with Higher Impact while PubMed Results Offer More Breadth
Autores: Perryman, Carol; Texas Woman's University Denton, Texas, United States of America
Fecha: 2013-06-10
Publicador: University of Alberta Learning Services
Fuente: Ver documento
Tipo: info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

evidence summary
Tema: Google Scholar, PubMed
Descripción: Objectives – To compare PubMed and Google Scholar results for content relevance and article quality Design – Bibliometric study. Setting – Department of Internal Medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. Methods – Four clinical searches were conducted in both PubMed and Google Scholar. Search methods were described as “real world” (p. 216) behaviour, with the searchers familiar with content, though not expert at retrieval techniques. The first 20 results from each search were evaluated for relevance to the initial question, as well as for quality. Relevance was determined based on one author’s subjective assessment of information in the title and abstract, when available, and then tested by two other authors, with discrepancies discussed and resolved. Items were assigned to one of three categories: relevant, possibly relevant, and not relevant to the question, with reviewer agreement measured using a weighted kappa statistic. The quality of items found to be ‘relevant’ and ‘possibly relevant’ was measured by impact factor ratings from Thomsen Reuters (ISI) Web of Knowledge, when available, as well as information obtained by SCOPUS on the number of times items were cited. Main Results – Google Scholar results were judged to be more relevant and of higher quality than results obtained from PubMEed. Google Scholar results are also older on average, while PubMed retrieved items from a larger number of unique journals. Conclusion – In agreement with earlier research, the authors recommended that searchers use both PubMed and Google Scholar to improve on the quality and relevance of results. Searches in the two resources identify unique items based upon the ranking algorithms involved.
Idioma: Inglés
Artículos similares:
Enhanced Catalogue Records Positively Impact Circulation but Are Not Used to Their Potential in Patron Searching por Merkley, Cari; Mount Royal University Library Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Linking Information Seeking Patterns with Purpose, Use, Value, and Return On Investment of Academic Library Journals por King, Donald W.; Bryant University Smithfield, Rhode Island, United States of America,Tenopir, Carol; University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee, United States of America
Risk Profile May Affect Search Process but Not Results por Hannigan, Gale G.; Texas A&M University Libraries
Academic Librarians Have Concerns about Their Role as Teachers por Wilson, Virginia; University of Saskatchewan
EBLIP7: The Possibilities are Endless! por Wilson, Virginia; University Library University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
10