Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases

被引:402
作者
Gusenbauer, Michael [1 ]
机构
[1] Johannes Kepler Univ Linz, Inst Innovat Management, Altenberger Str 69, A-4040 Linz, Austria
关键词
Academic search engine; Academic bibliographic database; Query hit count; Size; Iterative analysis; Metrics; Google Scholar; WEB; SCIENCE; COVERAGE; INFORMATION; BIBLIOMETRICS; SCOPUS; IMPACT; SUITABILITY;
D O I
10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Information on the size of academic search engines and bibliographic databases (ASEBDs) is often outdated or entirely unavailable. Hence, it is difficult to assess the scope of specific databases, such as Google Scholar. While scientometric studies have estimated ASEBD sizes before, the methods employed were able to compare only a few databases. Consequently, there is no up-to-date comparative information on the sizes of popular ASEBDs. This study aims to fill this blind spot by providing a comparative picture of 12 of the most commonly used ASEBDs. In doing so, we build on and refine previous scientometric research by counting query hit data as an indicator of the number of accessible records. Iterative query optimization makes it possible to identify a maximum number of hits for most ASEBDs. The results were validated in terms of their capacity to assess database size by comparing them with official information on database sizes or previous scientometric studies. The queries used here are replicable, so size information can be updated quickly. The findings provide first-time size estimates of ProQuest and EbscoHost and indicate that Google Scholar's size might have been underestimated so far by more than 50%. By our estimation Google Scholar, with 389 million records, is currently the most comprehensive academic search engine.
引用
收藏
页码:177 / 214
页数:38
相关论文
共 56 条
[1]  
Adamick Jessica, 2010, D-Lib Magazine, V16, DOI 10.1045/november2010-adamick
[2]   Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis [J].
Aguillo, Isidro F. .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 2012, 91 (02) :343-351
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2008, OXFORD WORDLIST
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2015, Search Engines: Information Retrieval in Practice
[5]   Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century - A review [J].
Bar-Ilan, Judit .
JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 2008, 2 (01) :1-52
[6]   A technique for measuring the relative size and overlap of public Web search engines [J].
Bharat, K ;
Broder, A .
COMPUTER NETWORKS AND ISDN SYSTEMS, 1998, 30 (1-7) :379-388
[7]   Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references [J].
Bornmann, Lutz ;
Mutz, Ruediger .
JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2015, 66 (11) :2215-2222
[8]   Is Google enough? Comparison of an internet search engine with academic library resources [J].
Brophy, J ;
Bawden, D .
ASLIB PROCEEDINGS, 2005, 57 (06) :498-512
[9]  
Caragea Cornelia, 2014, Advances in Information Retrieval. 36th European Conference on IR Research, ECIR 2014. Proceedings: LNCS 8416, P311, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-06028-6_26
[10]  
CHADEGANI A. A., 2013, Asian Soc Sci, V9, P18, DOI [10.5539/ass.v9n5p18, DOI 10.5539/ASS.V9N5P18]