Much praise has been showered on Google Scholar, Google’s specialized ’scholarly’ search engine, since it launched last November. And for those without access to very expensive mega-databases such as Web of Science (WoS) from ISI (subscribed by the University Library) and the recently launched Scopus from Elsevier, Google Scholar is (being free of charge) better than nothing.
However, Peter Jasco (Associate Professor at the Library and Information Science Program University of Hawai’i at Mänoa) is not impressed. He first reviewed Google Scholar back in November 2004 after it launched and he wasn’t too keen on it then. He reviewed it again recently and, if anything, is even less keen now. He concludes, rather damningly:
“There are certainly many journals of many publishers covered [by Google Scholar] to keep casual users, high-school and undergrad students, TV talking heads and shallow journalists happy, but for scholarly research the breadth of coverage is not sufficient, the implementation is sloppy and the software options are inferior.”
He even says that, in many cases, you may be better off using standard Google rather than Google Scholar to find ’scholarly’ material! And many others are not too keen on GS. For instance, another detailed review of Google Scholar by Martin Myhill, Deputy University Librarian at University of Exeter, appeared recently in The Charleston Advisor. Although more favourable than Peter Jasco, Myhill also has reservations:
“The vast majority of academic literature is found in the ‘hidden Web’. While Google Scholar has made valiant attempts to include a range of resources in this category, it is apparent that coverage leans heavily on the sciences, rarely includes all the offerings even from partner publishers and misses many of the quality resources which are more usually accessible to scholars through institutional subscriptions.”
The same criticisms come up repeatedly: lack of search options available, no indication of the sources Google Scholar accesses or of how often they are updated, search results too variable containing too much ‘noise’ and what, exactly, does Google consider to be ’scholarly’?
A recent improvement by Google is that libraries can now link their holdings through Google Scholar - any library or institution that has the proper link resolving software can hook into Google Scholar and provide direct links to Google Scholar search results. So, if our library adopted the system and had access to a particular reference in the GS results page, the correct link to our appropriate full-text copy would be provided. Currently, you may be denied access to articles which you should have access to because Google Scholar cannot know the correct link. I asked Patricia Killiard (Head of Electronic Services and Systems at the UL) if there were any plans for the UL to provide this GS linking service. She replied:
“The set-up needs to be done in OCLC FirstSearch. We will either do this over the summer or set about procuring an OpenURL resolver, if funding becomes available. However, the poor quality of Google Scholar’s search facilities hasn’t encouraged us to make a priority.”
A UL Websites and Subject Gateways web page states the problem, warning you not to pay for access to an article which may already be subscribed by the UL:
“Google Scholar - a new search service focused on academic content - is also available. As well as search results, Google Scholar will also give you links to articles citing the item found - providing extra lists of relevant articles. Please check our Electronic Resources pages before paying for any item - we may have a subscription to it, meaning that staff and students of the University can access it free.” [my emphasis]
A useful summary of how to use Google Scholar and the caveats that apply is available at Emory University Libraries of Atlanta, Georgia.
In summary, as with any resource, Google Scholar has its uses - but it is important to know about its limitations.