搜索结果：scholar

Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) provides a new method of locating potentially relevant articles on a given subject by identifying subsequent articles that cite a previously published article. An important feature of Google Scholar is that researchers can use it to trace interconnections among authors citing articles on the same topic and to determine the frequency with which others cite a specific article, as it has a “ cited by ” feature. This study begins with an overview of how to use Google Scholar for citation analysis and identifies advanced search techniques not well documented by Google Scholar. This study also compares the citation counts provided by Web of Science and Google Scholar for articles in the field of “Webometrics.” It makes several suggestions for improving Google Scholar. Finally, it concludes that Google Scholar provides a free alternative or complement to other citation indexes.

Using critical race theory as a framework, this article provides an examination of how racial and gender microaggressions affect the career paths of Chicana and Chicano scholars. This paper reports on open-ended survey and interview data of a purposive sample of six Chicana and six Chicano Ford Foundation Predoctoral, Dissertation, and Postdoctoral Minority Fellows. There are three objectives for this study: (a) to extend and apply a critical race theory to the field of education, (b) to ''recognize,'' ''document,'' and analyze racial and gender microaggressions of Chicana and Chicano scholars, and (c) to ''hear'' the voice of ''discrimination's victims'' by examining the effect of race and gender microaggressions on the lives of Chicana and Chicano scholars. Three patterns of racial and gender microaggressions were found: (a) scholars who felt out of place in the academy because of their race and or gender, (b) scholars who felt their teachers professors had lower expectations for them, and (c) scholars' accounts of subtle and not so subtle racial and gender incidents. The article ends with possible directions for continued critical race theory research with scholars of color.

Has the Internet affected the ways in which people communicate by lessening the effects of distance? To examine this question, the authors study scholarly and interpersonal relationships—in person and by e-mail—in two scholarly networks, one in a large university and one dispersed across North America. These scholarly networks are harbingers of the turn toward network and virtual organizations. Although the Internet helps scholars to maintain ties over great distances, physical proximity still matters. Those scholars who see each other often or work near each other e-mail each other more often. Frequent contact on the Internet is a complement to frequent face-to-face contact, not a substitute for it. The more scholarly relations network members have, the more frequently they communicate and the more media they use to communicate. Although e-mail helps scholars without strong ties to stay in contact, it is used most by scholars who are collaborators or friends.

CONTEXT: Until recently, Web of Science was the only database available to track citation counts for published articles. Other databases are now available, but their relative performance has not been established. OBJECTIVE: To compare the citation count profiles of articles published in general medical journals among the citation databases of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. DESIGN: Cohort study of 328 articles published in JAMA, Lancet, or the New England Journal of Medicine between October 1, 1999, and March 31, 2000. Total citation counts for each article up to June 2008 were retrieved from Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Article characteristics were analyzed in linear regression models to determine interaction with the databases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of citations received by an article since publication and article characteristics associated with citation in databases. RESULTS: Google Scholar and Scopus retrieved more citations per article with a median of 160 (interquartile range [IQR], 83 to 324) and 149 (IQR, 78 to 289), respectively, than Web of Science (median, 122; IQR, 66 to 241) (P < .001 for both comparisons). Compared with Web of Science, Scopus retrieved more citations from non-English-language sources (median, 10.2% vs 4.1%) and reviews (30.8% vs 18.2%), and fewer citations from articles (57.2% vs 70.5%), editorials (2.1% vs 5.9%), and letters (0.8% vs 2.6%) (all P < .001). On a log(10)-transformed scale, fewer citations were found in Google Scholar to articles with declared industry funding (nonstandardized regression coefficient, -0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.15 to -0.03), reporting a study of a drug or medical device (-0.05; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.01), or with group authorship (-0.29; 95% CI, -0.35 to -0.23). In multivariable analysis, group authorship was the only characteristic that differed among the databases; Google Scholar had significantly fewer citations to group-authored articles (-0.30; 95% CI, -0.36 to -0.23) compared with Web of Science. CONCLUSION: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar produced quantitatively and qualitatively different citation counts for articles published in 3 general medical journals.

This study investigates the implications of ChatGPT, an AI-powered language model, for students and universities by examining the perceptions of scholars and students. The responses of seven scholars and 14 PhD students from four countries – Turkey, Sweden, Canada and Australia – are analysed using a thematic content analysis approach. Nine key themes emerge from the findings. According to their frequency of recurrence, these themes are: “Evolution of learning and education systems”, “changing role of educators”, “impact on assessment and evaluation”, “ethical and social considerations”, “future of work and employability”, “personalized learning”, “digital literacy and AI integration”, “AI as an extension of the human brain”, and “importance of human characteristics”. The potential benefits of AI in education as well as the challenges and barriers that may arise from its integration are discussed in the context of existing literature. Based on these findings, suggestions for future research include further exploration of the ethical implications of AI for education, the development of strategies to manage privacy concerns, and the investigation of how educational institutions can best prepare for the integration of AI technologies. The paper concludes by emphasizing the importance of understanding the potential opportunities and challenges associated with AI in higher education and the need for continued research in this area.

Abstract Scholars participate in online social networks for professional purposes. In such networks, learning takes the form of participation and identity formation through engagement in and contribution to networked practices. While current literature describes the possible benefits of online participation, empirical research on scholars' use of online social networks in the educational technology literature is negligible. The purpose of this paper is to understand scholars' naturalistic practices in social networks in general, and on Twitter in particular. Tweets from 45 scholars were analysed qualitatively to arrive at dominant themes describing online social network practice. Findings indicate that scholars participating on Twitter (1) shared information, resources, and media relating to their professional practice; (2) shared information about their classroom and their students; (3) requested assistance from and offered suggestions to others; (4) engaged in social commentary; (5) engaged in digital identity and impression management; (6) sought to network and make connections with others; and (7) highlighted their participation in online networks other than Twitter. These findings assist the field in understanding the emerging practice of scholarly participation in online networks.

The evolution of the electronic age has led to the development of numerous medical databases on the World Wide Web, offering search facilities on a particular subject and the ability to perform citation analysis. We compared the content coverage and practical utility of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The official Web pages of the databases were used to extract information on the range of journals covered, search facilities and restrictions, and update frequency. We used the example of a keyword search to evaluate the usefulness of these databases in biomedical information retrieval and a specific published article to evaluate their utility in performing citation analysis. All databases were practical in use and offered numerous search facilities. PubMed and Google Scholar are accessed for free. The keyword search with PubMed offers optimal update frequency and includes online early articles; other databases can rate articles by number of citations, as an index of importance. For citation analysis, Scopus offers about 20% more coverage than Web of Science, whereas Google Scholar offers results of inconsistent accuracy. PubMed remains an optimal tool in biomedical electronic research. Scopus covers a wider journal range, of help both in keyword searching and citation analysis, but it is currently limited to recent articles (published after 1995) compared with Web of Science. Google Scholar, as for the Web in general, can help in the retrieval of even the most obscure information but its use is marred by inadequate, less often updated, citation information.

This article examines how multilingual scholars who work outside English-speaking countries negotiate the demand to publish in English alongside their broader academic and publishing interests. Based on our ethnographic study of the academic writing and publishing practices of 16 psychology scholars in Hungary, Slovakia and Spain, we characterize the range of communities for whom the scholars are writing, drawing on notions of discourse community, community of practice and speech community. We discuss the differential value attached to publications for different communities and how such value is sustained through the rewards systems in which scholars work. We offer brief profiles of three scholars from the study to illustrate how they negotiate academic and professional interests. We explain implications of the findings to TESOL, particularly for curriculum and pedagogy in English for academic purposes.

Purpose To identify the pros and the cons of Google Scholar. Design/methodology/approach Chronicles the recent history of the Google Scholar search engine from its inception in November 2004 and critiques it with regard to its merits and demerits. Findings Feels that there are massive content omissions presently but that, with future changes in its structure, Google Scholar will become an excellent free tool for scholarly information discovery and retrieval. Originality/value Presents a useful analysis for potential users of the Google Scholar site.

Abstract Scholars are increasingly using the microblogging service Twitter as a communication platform. Since citing is a central practice of scholarly communication, we investigated whether and how scholars cite on Twitter. We conducted interviews and harvested 46,515 tweets from a sample of 28 scholars and found that they do cite on Twitter, though often indirectly. Twitter citations are part of a fast‐moving conversation that participants believe reflects scholarly impact. Twitter citation metrics could augment traditional citation analysis, supporting a “scientometrics 2.0.”

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to revisit Google Scholar. Design/methodology/approach This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Google Scholar. Findings The Google Books project has given a massive and valuable boost to the already rich and diverse content of Google Scholar. The downside of the growth is that significant gaps remain for top ranking journals and serials, and the number of duplicate, triplicate and quadruplicate records for the same source documents (which Google Scholar cannot detect reliably) has increased. Originality/value This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of Google Scholar.

Abstract The Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI, now Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, PA) citation databases have been used for decades as a starting point and often as the only tools for locating citations and/or conducting citation analyses. The ISI databases (or Web of Science [WoS]), however, may no longer be sufficient because new databases and tools that allow citation searching are now available. Using citations to the work of 25 library and information science (LIS) faculty members as a case study, the authors examine the effects of using Scopus and Google Scholar (GS) on the citation counts and rankings of scholars as measured by WoS. Overall, more than 10,000 citing and purportedly citing documents were examined. Results show that Scopus significantly alters the relative ranking of those scholars that appear in the middle of the rankings and that GS stands out in its coverage of conference proceedings as well as international, non‐English language journals. The use of Scopus and GS, in addition to WoS, helps reveal a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the scholarly impact of authors. The WoS data took about 100 hours of collecting and processing time, Scopus consumed 200 hours, and GS a grueling 3,000 hours.

BACKGROUND: Researchers turn to citation tracking to find the most influential articles for a particular topic and to see how often their own published papers are cited. For years researchers looking for this type of information had only one resource to consult: the Web of Science from Thomson Scientific. In 2004 two competitors emerged--Scopus from Elsevier and Google Scholar from Google. The research reported here uses citation analysis in an observational study examining these three databases; comparing citation counts for articles from two disciplines (oncology and condensed matter physics) and two years (1993 and 2003) to test the hypothesis that the different scholarly publication coverage provided by the three search tools will lead to different citation counts from each. METHODS: Eleven journal titles with varying impact factors were selected from each discipline (oncology and condensed matter physics) using the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). All articles published in the selected titles were retrieved for the years 1993 and 2003, and a stratified random sample of articles was chosen, resulting in four sets of articles. During the week of November 7-12, 2005, the citation counts for each research article were extracted from the three sources. The actual citing references for a subset of the articles published in 2003 were also gathered from each of the three sources. RESULTS: For oncology 1993 Web of Science returned the highest average number of citations, 45.3. Scopus returned the highest average number of citations (8.9) for oncology 2003. Web of Science returned the highest number of citations for condensed matter physics 1993 and 2003 (22.5 and 3.9 respectively). The data showed a significant difference in the mean citation rates between all pairs of resources except between Google Scholar and Scopus for condensed matter physics 2003. For articles published in 2003 Google Scholar returned the largest amount of unique citing material for oncology and Web of Science returned the most for condensed matter physics. CONCLUSION: This study did not identify any one of these three resources as the answer to all citation tracking needs. Scopus showed strength in providing citing literature for current (2003) oncology articles, while Web of Science produced more citing material for 2003 and 1993 condensed matter physics, and 1993 oncology articles. All three tools returned some unique material. Our data indicate that the question of which tool provides the most complete set of citing literature may depend on the subject and publication year of a given article.

In this groundbreaking book, Aldon D. Morris’s ambition is truly monumental: to help rewrite the history of sociology and to acknowledge the primacy of W. E. B. Du Bois’s work in the founding of the discipline. Calling into question the prevailing narrative of how sociology developed, Morris, a major scholar of social movements, probes the way in which the history of the discipline has traditionally given credit to Robert E. Park at the University of Chicago, who worked with the conservative black leader Booker T. Washington to render Du Bois invisible. Morris uncovers the seminal theoretical work of Du Bois in developing a "scientific" sociology through a variety of methodologies and examines how the leading scholars of the day disparaged and ignored Du Bois’s work. The Scholar Denied is based on extensive, rigorous primary source research; the book is the result of a decade of research, writing, and revision. In exposing the economic and political factors that marginalized the contributions of Du Bois and enabled Park and his colleagues to be recognized as the "fathers" of the discipline, Morris delivers a wholly new narrative of American intellectual and social history that places one of America’s key intellectuals, W. E. B. Du Bois, at its center. The Scholar Denied is a must-read for anyone interested in American history, racial inequality, and the academy. In challenging our understanding of the past, the book promises to engender debate and discussion.

Google Scholar (GS), a commonly used web-based academic search engine, catalogues between 2 and 100 million records of both academic and grey literature (articles not formally published by commercial academic publishers). Google Scholar collates results from across the internet and is free to use. As a result it has received considerable attention as a method for searching for literature, particularly in searches for grey literature, as required by systematic reviews. The reliance on GS as a standalone resource has been greatly debated, however, and its efficacy in grey literature searching has not yet been investigated. Using systematic review case studies from environmental science, we investigated the utility of GS in systematic reviews and in searches for grey literature. Our findings show that GS results contain moderate amounts of grey literature, with the majority found on average at page 80. We also found that, when searched for specifically, the majority of literature identified using Web of Science was also found using GS. However, our findings showed moderate/poor overlap in results when similar search strings were used in Web of Science and GS (10-67%), and that GS missed some important literature in five of six case studies. Furthermore, a general GS search failed to find any grey literature from a case study that involved manual searching of organisations' websites. If used in systematic reviews for grey literature, we recommend that searches of article titles focus on the first 200 to 300 results. We conclude that whilst Google Scholar can find much grey literature and specific, known studies, it should not be used alone for systematic review searches. Rather, it forms a powerful addition to other traditional search methods. In addition, we advocate the use of tools to transparently document and catalogue GS search results to maintain high levels of transparency and the ability to be updated, critical to systematic reviews.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Although 5-year survival rates in the first-line setting range from 60% to 70%, up to 50% of patients become refractory to or relapse after treatment. Published analyses of large-scale outcome data from patients with refractory DLBCL are limited. SCHOLAR-1, an international, multicohort retrospective non-Hodgkin lymphoma research study, retrospectively evaluated outcomes in patients with refractory DLBCL which, for this study, was defined as progressive disease or stable disease as best response at any point during chemotherapy (>4 cycles of first-line or 2 cycles of later-line therapy) or relapsed at ≤12 months from autologous stem cell transplantation. SCHOLAR-1 pooled data from 2 phase 3 clinical trials (Lymphoma Academic Research Organization-CORAL and Canadian Cancer Trials Group LY.12) and 2 observational cohorts (MD Anderson Cancer Center and University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence). Response rates and overall survival were estimated from the time of initiation of salvage therapy for refractory disease. Among 861 patients, 636 were included on the basis of refractory disease inclusion criteria. For patients with refractory DLBCL, the objective response rate was 26% (complete response rate, 7%) to the next line of therapy, and the median overall survival was 6.3 months. Twenty percent of patients were alive at 2 years. Outcomes were consistently poor across patient subgroups and study cohorts. SCHOLAR-1 is the largest patient-level pooled retrospective analysis to characterize response rates and survival for a population of patients with refractory DLBCL.

Purpose – The research aim for this study was to compare three citation resources with one another to identify the citation resource with the most representative South African scholarly environmental sciences citation coverage. This paper focuses on the results of the content verification process which measured amongst others the citation counts, multiple copies and inconsistencies encountered across the three citation resources ISI Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar. Design/methodology/approach – The research, the first phase of a longitudinal study, used a comparative research design method with a purposive, non-probability sample. Data from the South African scholarly environmental sciences journals for the year range 2004-2008 (first phase) were extracted from the three citation resources and compared. Findings – It became evident during the verification process that the citation resources retrieved varied results. The total citation counts indicated that ISI Web of Science (WOS) retrieved the most citation results, followed by Google Scholar (GS) and then Scopus. WOS performed the best with total coverage of the journal sample population and also retrieved the most unique items. The investigation into multiple copies indicated that WOS and Scopus retrieved no duplicates, while GS retrieved multiple copies. Scopus delivered the least inconsistencies regarding content verification and content quality compared to the other two citation resources. Additionally, GS also retrieved the most inconsistencies, with WOS retrieving more inconsistencies than Scopus. Examples of these inconsistencies include author spelling and sequence, volume and issue number. Originality/value – The findings of the study contribute to the understanding of the completeness of citation results retrieved from different citation resources. In addition it will raise awareness amongst academics to check citations of their work.

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.

The scholarship on policy diffusion in political science and public administration is extensive. This article provides an introduction to that literature for scholars, students, and practitioners. It offers seven lessons derived from that literature, built from numerous empirical studies and applied to contemporary policy debates. Based on these seven lessons, the authors offer guidance to policy makers and present opportunities for future research to students and scholars of policy diffusion .