Cross-Examining Google Scholar

Christy Hightower and Christy Caldwell, “Shifting Sands: Science Researchers on Google Scholar, Web of Science, and PubMed, with Implications for Library Collections Budgets, ”

Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship

(2010), www.istl.org/10-fall/refereed3.htmlnJohn Meier, Thomas Conkling, '“Google Scholar’s Coverage of the Engineering Literature: An Empirical Study, ”' Journal of Academic Librarianship 34 no. 3 (2008): 196-201nWilliam Waters, '“Google Scholar Coverage of a Multidisciplinary Field, ”' Information Processing & Management 43 (2007): 1121-32nXiaotian Chen, '“Google Scholar’s Dramatic Coverage Improvement Five Years after Debut, ”' Serials Review 36 no. 4 (2010): 221-26nCindi Trainor, Jason Price, '“Chapter 3: Digging into the Data: Exposing the Causes of Resolver Failure, ”' Library Technology Reports 46 no. 7 (2010): 15-26nPéter Jacsó;, “Metadata Mega Mess in Google Scholar, ”

Online Information Review

, no. 1(2010): 175–91; Geoffrey Nunberg, “Google’s Book Search: A Disaster for Scholars, ”

Chronicle Review

(August 2009), http://chronicle.com/article/Googles-Book-Search-A/48245nJasco, “Newswire Analysis.”nJerry E. Gray, Michelle C. Hamilton, Alexandra Hauser, et al., “Scholarish: Google Scholar and its Value to the Sciences, ”

Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship

no. 70 (Summer 2012), www.istl.org/12-summer/article1.htmlnIbidn“For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.” Matthew 13:12nEmilio Delgado López-Cózar, Nicolás Robinson-García, and Daniel Torres-Salinas, “Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: Simple, Easy and Tempting, ”

EC3 Working Papers

(May 29, 2012), arXiv:1212.0638, http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0638n