Science topic

Google Scholar - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Google Scholar, and find Google Scholar experts.
Questions related to Google Scholar
Question
122 answers
Which is more productive and effective in Engineering: Google Scholar h-index or ISI Journal Impact factor ?
Relevant answer
Answer
HI, all! At a similar discussion I said that htese indexes are more needed by our bosses and employers than by us, the researchers. We can easily spot a paper that merits and a paper that is worth nothing, while our employers have to have a "better" measure. In fact, I am asking another Q: How long are we THE researchers going to support publishers of our papers to gain money on us, while we get nothing for our work?
Question
5 answers
Hi Researchers,
Can you share Where to find data about total journals/articles indexed in Google Scholar, SSCI etc? I am looking for all the authentic journal publication stats since the recorded human history. Please help
Relevant answer
I think the best approach for that is to contact Google scholar managers themselves. You can do that via the Google Scholar "Contact us" form
Question
1 answer
google manually blocked two scholar citation profiles of colleagues
Two professors at my school created google scholar profiles attributed them our institution. So, on their articles, their names were underlined with hyperlinks to the GS profiles. They appeared on our group pages at Scholar: search: @emse.fr to see them.
This is an excellent way to improve an institute's web presence) Then, recently their profiles pages still exist but on their articles, their names are no longer hyperlinked nor can you find their Google Scholar Citation Profiles in our scholar group or by searching with Google Scholar. Is there a way to find out why they are quarantined and rectify their situation.?These professors are good scientists and their research is respected, but they are not especially tech-savvy. If they made some mistakes I am sure they would wish to know how to avoid them in the future
Any help would be appreciated
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Mr. Yukna,
Advise them to professors to follow linked instructions.
Best wishes.
Question
3 answers
Dear colleagues, I really would like to know your opinion. I am asking specifically for electrical engineering field and related fields.
What value of H-index (Web of Science citations only) is considered as "good enough" for Assistant Professor and Associated Professor job in your country (or university)?
Did anybody ask you for its value when applying for a job?
Relevant answer
Answer
The H-index is really only appropriate for mid and late career researchers who have published many papers over time. Citations take time to build up. The indices of individuals vary markedly between sub-areas of research. I worked on my university promotions panel for many years and contributed references to many more. We never used the H-index as a discriminator, only as one of many inputs.
Question
2 answers
  • The h-index reflects both the number of publications and the number of citations per publication. For example: a scientist with an h-Index of 20 has 20 papers cited at least 20 times.
  • The g-index looks at overall record of citations from higher-cited articles to be used to bolster lower-cited articles. For instance a scientist with 20 papers, 15 of which have no citations with the remaining five having respectively 350, 35, 10, 4 and 1 citations would have a g-index of 20, but a h-index of 4 (four papers with at least 4 citations each).
Relevant answer
Answer
As always, when metrics are being used to assess quality, people will look for ways to game the system. The paper below, from which I have copied the previous sentence, discusses h-index, g-index, m-index, and metric in general, and it provides some funny scenarios.
Question
7 answers
  • First of all, in the Nature Index (±82), all the journals are not Nature journals .
  • Secondly, how we differentiate Natural Index journals from Web of Science and Scopus index journals?
Relevant answer
Answer
First part of your question ("What are Nature Index journals?")
In addition to the response above, I would like to add the following: "The Nature Index includes primary research articles published in a group (n=82) of high-quality science journals. The journals included in the Nature Index are selected by a panel of active scientists, independently of Nature Research. The selection process reflects researchers’ perceptions of journal quality, rather than using quantitative measures such as Impact Factor."
The above explanation has been taken from the introduction to the Nature index, where you will find further information:
Second part of your question ("How we differentiate Natural Index journals from Science Citation Index (SCI) or Science Citation Index Expanded SCIE) and Scopus index journals?")
Since only 82 journals are included, the Nature Index represent less than 1% of the journals covering natural sciences in the Web of Science Core Collection maintained by Clarivate Analytics. Nevertheless, these journals account for 30% of total citations to natural science journals. The Web of Science Core Collection includes more than 20,000 journals, 69 million article records, and 1 billion cited references. While Scopus inexing is independent from the Web of Science Core Collection, SCI and SCIE, you were also asking for, are indexes covered by the Web of Science Core Collection.
Question
2 answers
I need to do a systematic review of a large topic and it would be tremendously helpful to have some software, which can take one paper, read its citations, look for them on Google Scholar, read their citations etc. and visualize the result as a network.
The very similar question is https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_any_recommended_software_to_visualise_articles_papers_references_when_conducting_a_systematic_review_or_meta-analysis and the CitNet Explorer is exactly what I want, but the problem is it only works with WoS.
Do you know about any similar software, which works with GS?
Relevant answer
I personally use the VOSviewer. It is a software that analyzes the semantic content of titles and abstracts of publications and relates them to their citation counts, and generates a bubble map to visualize the results. It may be of benefit to your purpose.
Question
7 answers
How many of you have had a look on https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.01605.pdf where Prof. J.E. Hirsch suggests new, improved "h-indexes" "to quantify an individual’s scientific leadership"? Formal evaluators just love the original h-index, it's easily obtained from WoS, GS, Scopus etc data bases. How much can or should this (or some improved parameter) be relayed on evaluating researchers success, contribution and impact?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Dr. Raivo Stern,
Very interesting.
The h-index is highly criticized and, in the meantime, extensively employed to rank both science and respective performers, due to its straightforward calculation, perhaps: it needs author publications and respective cites number only. Nonetheless, one of the greatest criticisms on h-index is its ever growing property. It will virtually never stop growing over time, even if a scientist stops publishing.
A ideal index that assesses, in a balanced way, a scientist in relation to its peers, on one axis, and over time, on the other, is still pursued.
The new h-alpha-index and h-alpha-index' are by far more complexes to derive. They require information of all the peers a particular scientist (under assessment) has published with in a particular publication, in addition to his/her own, for every work published until that moment, including, of course, respective number of citations.
Like the basic h-index, h-alpha-index and h-alpha-index' will also change over time, impacted now by the time-varying characteristic of core data that composes both new indexes. For instance, if by any means the alpha author, the author with the highest h-index among co-authors within a particular publication, changes in one or more publications over time, all the metrics will changes accordingly. This is expected to impose a barrier, which will prevent the new indexes to grow indefinitely, as compared to the naive h-index. This is a bonus, meaning that if a scientist stops producing, as compared to his/her peers, he/she will invariably witness his/her h-alpha index drifting downward over time.
I hope Harzing PoP and Researchgate incorporate these new metrics into their portfolio, and see what happens then.
Peace and blessings!
Question
9 answers
Despite citation counts from Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus being widely consulted by researchers and sometimes used in research evaluations, there is no recent or systematic evidence about the differences between them. The results from attached work suggest that in all areas GS citation data is essentially a superset of WoS and Scopus, with substantial extra coverage.
Relevant answer
Google Scholar has of course more coverage because almost any website identified as a scientific journal is indexed there. This includes even predatory journals, even if you uploaded a poster on RG with citations, it will appear there. Also, theses on university websites appear there. Being inclusive is good (more coverage / higher sensitivity) and bad in the same time (predatory publishers use this indexing to convince authors they are real). Therefore, most universities use SCOPUS or Web of Science for assessment of research output.
Question
45 answers
Hello there! Anyone else noticed the above, please? And, might anyone be able to explain why, please?
I've also noticed that last week I might get a +1 on my citations, the week after it'll be -1. Can't seem to find out why in the normal bulletins / chat boards.
Thanking all of you in advance, for any and all comments :-)
Relevant answer
Answer
My citation count dropped by nearly 3000 citations. All of my Physical Review Letters dissappeared from GS sometime around mid February. I was fortunate to have an open window of GS with data before the decrease. My hypothesis is that American Physical Societry Journals, particularly Phys. Rev. Lett. have modified access to APS journals leading to massive undercounts on GS for those who typically publish in APS journals. Many of my colleagues experienced similar undercounts on GS. Recommended Action: write to the Editor in Chief of APS Journals and complain that GS is being blocked from counting your citations. - JAS
Question
5 answers
I'm looking for references which indicate the limit on search returns using Google Scholar for SLR.
Relevant answer
This same question was asked 5 years ago. If you introduce "
Google scholar for systematic reviews: what limit on search returns?" in google you will find this question and numerous answers in researchgate.
You can also check this manuscripts (both of them open access)
Variation in number of hits for complex searches in Google Scholar PMID: 27076802
Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study PMID: 29208034
They will help you.
Good luck!
Question
3 answers
Hallo,
in the context of my master thesis I would like to point out that the publications in the area of the topic blockchain in supplychain management have increased enormously in the last two years. For this I would like to make a graphic and compare the results with those of web of science and google scholar. unfortunately it is not possible for me to get a filtered output (research gate) for the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
kind regards
Fabian
Relevant answer
Answer
You can do it manually on arXiv and MathSciNet if you filter a particular year and you filter the MSC subject classification for example.
Question
4 answers
Hello,
I have a general question concerning the usage of Google Scholar.
Does anybody know, whether it is possible (after searching for a certain topic) to select specific journals from the suggestions?
I would be very pleased to receive your answers and opinions to this idea.
Thank you in advance!
Lisa
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi Derek and thank you for your answer! You got the question halfcorrect, but this is rather caused by me than by you.
I was actually wondering, whether it is possible to select several journals, but not a single one in one go. I tried with several seperators (.; etc.), but am I right in saying it has to be done one by one?
Question
5 answers
Why we cannot access to these research? What is the reason to convert it into unlinked site? Where I have a research and recently appeared in black .
Relevant answer
Answer
It was deleted due to some intellectual property problems. Go to the journal site or ask the corresponding Author to send you a copy.
Question
12 answers
If you look at your GS profile, you get a list of papers with citation numbers. The graphic shows citation #s by year. Is there a simple way to see who has recently cited what work? 🤔
Relevant answer
A simple solution.
To make a Google scholar account, you must have Gmail.
Simply activate the notifications when you get cited and each time you get cited, you will receive an email by which articles cited you.
Open your Google Scholar profile while you are opening your eamil. Beside your name, you will find a "Follow" button. Activate notify me with new citations box and you will have this function.
Hope that helps
Kind Regards
Question
10 answers
I am currently working in a systematic review and we decided to use Google scholars to search the relevant articles. Accordingly we performed search using our search terms and we found about 2,060 results. However, Google scholar gave us only 1000 articles which I exported to EndNote reference manager. In order to perform the next review steps we want all the remaining articles. so, is it possible to find the rest 1060 articles that GS didn’t provided us? I am so grateful if you can suggest me ways to find or know the remaining articles.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank You Gil Mahe,
Yes we have refined our keywords but we still ended up with greater than 1 k outputs. So we have divided our search by restricting our search between different date in the 'Return articles dated between' of advanced search area of GS. And of course we have retrieved almost more than 99% of the literature we were looking for.
If you have the same issue, I hope this trick might help
Question
37 answers
As most of the papers have more citations as per google scholar but very low in RG? And I can't find any way to link the google citation with RG as well as I can't edit the co-authors name in already submitted paper on RG? How to solve these two problems?
Thanks in advance
Relevant answer
Answer
Here is some career advice for all of you. Those of you that will organize into an informal committee to solve this problem Will demonstrate organizational skills and administrative skills. These are more important for your bio then you realize that's how you get name recognition with colleagues outside your narrow field.
It is an unselfish act because you will be helping the whole wide field.
Conveniently the researchers you
would be helping the most are the people who have over a thousand missing citations these are the department chairpersons and full professors of the world. Many of them will probably remember your name and that doesn't hurt when you apply for jobs or apply for for membership in your professional organizations.
Question
9 answers
I have been using EndNote for quite a while now but recently facing a problem. When i try to import any citation from Google Scholar in EndNote, instead of "open the citation" dialogue box, "save the file" dialogue box opens every time. I first save the file somewhere then it enters into my EndNote library. Earlier, it used to be automatic. No need of saving. What could be the issue?
Relevant answer
Dear Colleague
When you import citations from G.Scholar into EndNote, it saves the file somewhere on your computer. When you reach 99 files downloaded, it opens "Save the file" box, so that you can rename the file or save it elsewhere. Here is my advice. See where the old EndNote downloaded files are downloaded and delete them. Hope this helps your issue.
Kind Regards
Question
14 answers
Get your work published in a top journal can make a huge impact in one's scientific career. But, what steps should early-scientists do to get their articles published in high-impact journals?
Relevant answer
Answer
Quality work
Question
6 answers
One of friend add other's paper in his/her google scholar account. When I asked them, they said politely that, sometimes google add automatically other's paper. But from my experience, sometimes google asked "is this publication your's?" But if we didn't accept, then it is impossible for anyone to add others works..or demand other's work as our own research work. Am I right or wrong. Please answer.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Nilutpal,
Google scholar adds articles of others into one's profile (although not authorised), if "add articles automatically" option is selected. This is because of similarity in author names; even if the name is not matched exactly, it might get added to the profile. However, one can edit/delete the articles that do not belong to particular author.
Regards,
Mahesh
Question
37 answers
I want to open my google scholar account with my Gmail address.
Relevant answer
Answer
So what happens when a researcher with scientific publications comes to the end of their contract at the institution but wants to keep and maintain their research profile online?? Not all researchers are employed at an academic institution all of the time! Google... hellooooo! can you sort this out please?
Question
4 answers
I have two conference papers published about one year ago in the same conference proceeding. One is finally get indexed by Scholar (it seems after being cited - not self-citing). Another is still not indexed. I skimmed all of Google's documentation related to indexing and tried various solutions. The papers are available from multiple places (the conference proceeding, the university's web site, my CV web site). No results. I have no idea about Google's criteria for indexing. Sometimes, it indexes even some presentation and drafts from my web site. Are there any tricks to arrange this and push Google a bit to index desired publications which it ignores so far?
The papers are:
(2, unindexed, added manually to the profile, unsearchable through Scholar): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1314215
Relevant answer
Answer
Thanks for the responses
Dear Dean, yes, I did "Add article manually" long time ago. And it is even appeared as an [citation] in GS search results. But neither full text nor abstract are searchable/indexed.
Dear Muthuraj, it is uploaded to RG long time ago.
It seems that a GS's algorithm marked internally this particular PDF as "non-article" or smth like this. Moreover, I have an article ( ) - GS indexes it, but didn't recognize a PDF preprint I made available. It is strange, because normally it put all versions of a parer together (including versions form a CV web page).
Question
3 answers
My articles were being added in my profile automatically, until a few months ago, I am getting no updates regarding my articles published. I tried to add them but I can't add any articles for which I'm an author. Even though, I can easily find them in Google Scholar (through a normal article search). I've tried searching for my name, the exact article name, the DOI, etc. I can see the article in my co-authors’ profile, however, I can’t search them in my profile. When I do a search, it returns the same message always “Your search – [search keyword] - did not match any articles.”
Does anyone else has also faced it? I tried searching for the solution on Google Scholar support forums, however, have found nothing.
P.S. Screenshot of response is also attached.
Relevant answer
Answer
Issue resolved by using VPN and changing my IP Address
Question
4 answers
There are several articles which are citing the publication and are also available on Google Scholar.. But still the Giant Google Scholar Crawler is unable to figure out. Is Google Crawler inefficient?
Relevant answer
Answer
In some cases you or someone else have to be patient, also it is known how that web search engine do not recognize all journals. Many of us are not happy with "performances" of Google Scholar, i.e. crawler's algorithm, but at the same time we all know that it is hard to make "perfect" crawler...
Question
6 answers
Currently PLE are widely applied in online education, specially to that approach known as networked learning. PLE can be considered one of expressions of openness, where most of tools are accessible for every one. But, what would you recommend, what kind of tools can be considered useful to this aim? What do you think on this list of tools?
a) Gen.Lib b) Sci-Hub c) arXiv.org d) Encuesta Facil e) Twitter (particularly its lists) f) Googlegroups g) Google Scholar h) Google News Science i) Facebook Groups j) Scoop.it?
Relevant answer
I agree with Luciana Oliveira, personally I have good experiences with Telegram. Among those mentioned in the proposed list, I also find Google and Facebook groups very useful, especially for the usability and popularity they have among the students.
Question
3 answers
Is there an easy way to trace the origin of a concept better than back tracking cited literature?
For instance, when was first used a term in the literature? Could be a theory, or you just want to access the oldest report on anything.
With google scholar, you can't really sort by date.
Web of Science doesn't go that far back.
JSTOR?
I recently heard of Google Ngrams but you can't have access to the documents behind the stats I am afraid?
Going further, how would you trace the evolution of a concept? The different milestones behind a concept. For instance, I could use the concept of "ecological niche" as I am aware of what I should get as a result.
Best,
Relevant answer
Answer
Google Ngrams is useful for looking of the origin of special terms, e.g. "ecology". See https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=ecology&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cecology%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cecology%3B%2Cc0 for this example. At the bottom of the page, you will find links to Google Books for different intervals of time. You may then narrow the first time span either in Google Ngrams or in Google Books. Sometimes the dating of a book is not correct, and users outside the USA do not have direct access to scanned books after 1875 or so (archives.org helps in these cases). But nevertheless I found this tool helpful.
Question
6 answers
Recently I have published an article in Sylwan journal but when search it in Google and Google scholar it couldn't find.
Relevant answer
Answer
I am afraid I have some sad news: you are a victim of a scam.
Sylwan is one of the sad examples of a journal that is hijacked. See:
The site:
Is unfortunately fake
The only original site is (unfortunately hardly any English):
If you click on the left image of the Sylwan cover you go to:
There you can find the following statement:
SYLWAN Editorial Board informs that sylwan(.)ibles(.)org is not any official version of our website and no correspondence (especialy (sic.) spam mailings) is sent by the Board. We bare no responsibility for any submission or contact with its owners and administrators.
The official site corresponds to genuine Sylwan version (with as far as I can see primarily Polish researchers since the journal is the official venue of a Polish Society) with an real (SCI) Impact factor of 0.691 and a Scopus indexation as well.
The fake journal is an example of a sad case of fraud and misleading practice that is unfortunately not uncommon. See also:
Sorry to bring you this message but you are a victim of a nasty form of misleading practice. Sad to see that apparently nothing can be done about this since these criminals still exist (does Google have no responsibility in this I wonder…).
Best regards.
PS. The only good thing is that your paper is now available in Google Scholar thanks to your uploaded paper here in Researchgate.
Question
7 answers
in Scholar Google I have over 2000 Citations, in Research Gate only 1319.
Thank you for explaining. Maybe Scholar ist better organized?
Peter
Relevant answer
Answer
Peter - various databases use different metric scoring systems. Some are more generous than others. It's not about being 'organised'. Perhaps the most 'conservative' is ISI WoS. The most generous is often seen as Google Scholar. Scopus tends to come in the middle - and RG tends to sit around the Scopus measure. I have close to 4,000 on Google Scholar - but you will see that it is around half that on RG.
Question
5 answers
Since long I am observing that number of citations to my research publications differ on Research gate and google scholar profile. Is this happening with you also? Can anybody suggest that how can we link both profiles together?
Relevant answer
Answer
I think both services use web crawlers to collect citation counts for authors' profiles. Two services are independent and therefore the counts could vary significantly even for the same author. In addition to the method of indexing, the sources they use for indexing are also different (as well as not well documented). Duplicate counts, counts of non-scholarly articles all could lead to give you different citation counts.
Question
22 answers
I'm striving to find the database that contains and able to search and surf the largest number possible of journal papers and other whatever scholar information sources
For instance
Web of Science and ..............
And if you see that there is difference between search engine and database please suggest both
Thank you
Relevant answer
Answer
Google Scholar (GS) could be the database with the largest coverage from variety of subject domains with free of access. However, I noticed that most literature criticized GS because of the following reasons: no one knows how and from where GS collects data (i.e. unknown sources), duplicate citation counts, limited search strategies, and indexation of non-scholarly content. One can notice that there are a lot of comparisons among GS, Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus.
Comparisons between WoS and Scopus reveal that Scopus covers more titles than WoS. However, the coverage in terms of time, WoS is ahead of Scopus since it was started several years before starting Scopus. As I remember, the records included in Scopus is limited to the year 1995. Studies also revealed that WoS is somewhat biased towards North American publications, while Scopus is not so. In case of searching, both these databases/services include approximately similar capabilities, but at times certain capabilities exceed the capabilities of the other. This is common for both databases.
The reason for different publication counts observed from GS and Scopus for the same search could be the duplicate records/citations included in GS.
Question
59 answers
I am just wondering why my Google citations are not captured by RG. In fact those articles that are cited are also uploaded in my RG account. Please help me understand this.
Craig
Relevant answer
Answer
Well, it will not be captured. Because they are working independently; this means you have to upload the paper that you are cited on RG before it captured it. However, it’s possible to link the two systems together, May be 2030 (future focus-research).
Question
8 answers
Hi
If I have an article published in a journal that does not have an online archive, and I want to upload this article to RG, does google scholar index this article?
Relevant answer
Answer
No.
Each platform depends on its own database and members publications, so that means you may find variations in evaluation metric among all platforms...
Question
35 answers
What are the metrics or indicators of the researcher's scientific or scholarly research?
How would you determine that such research contributions are of major significance in the field?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Dr. Mohamad-Hani Temsah,
Scientific contributions are divided into three groups:
1. Scientific contributions;
2. Scientific-applied contributions;
3. Applied contributions.
Scientific contributions are those that extend the scientific front forward.
In other words, they are such contributions that enter into unfamiliar and not yet explored areas by discovering new things unknown to the science so far.
Applied contributions are those that make scientific contributions in the practice.
Scientific-applied contributions are presented something medium between scientific and applied contributions.
Question
3 answers
I am trying to find the book name and citation details for this chapter https://akomm.ekut.kit.edu/downloads/GuW8_Correlation_red.pdf
but i can not find
I also searched on some specific keywords over google and google scholar and cannot find any clue
Can someone give me recommendations that may help me to get a complete details on this reference or already know this chapter ?
thanks in advance
Relevant answer
Answer
Thanks very much Avishag Gordon & Jasmin Omercic for your feedback
Question
5 answers
Can I add a research i found it in google to my google scholar profile such that this research make a citation to my thesis?
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes, There is a manual way to add your published papers into your google scholar profile.
Regards,
Emad
Question
15 answers
What is the benefit of non paid journals ??
Relevant answer
Answer
1- Follow these links to find a suitable journal regarding your manuscript:
2- After adding the title and abstract and/or keywords, if the journal charges status are showed you can exclude when you choose the suitable journal if not you can go to the (Author's guidelines or instructions) and click (Ctrl+F) and then type the word "Charge" and/or "Fee" in the search field to read the possible part of submission, processing or publishing charges (if no words are matched you can submit you paper since that journal is free).
Regards
Question
18 answers
I am writing a literature review and will use only peer reviewed articles. However, I am having a doubt, should I use Google Scholar, since no reviews published in the past 5 years (to my knowledge) used it. They focused on Web of Science and Scopus. Is there a lower chance to get published paper if use Google Scholar?
Relevant answer
Answer
Marija Cosovic, you should include grey literature, in part because a systematic review is just that: systematic. It covers the entire body of research. In the medical profession, failing to take into account grey literature has actually resulted in people dying. I remember in one Coursera course I took just to refresh, they mentioned a research assistant dying from a complication that they would have noticed, had they reviewed the grey literature.
Essentially, looking at published literature only does not in any way guarantee that you have reasonably captured the body of knowledge and research on a given topic.
Question
4 answers
Or only article, conference paper etc are found in google scholar search result.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for your informative reply.
Question
4 answers
Since I selected a rare area of my research, I don't find citations in my google scholar citations
Relevant answer
Answer
My study is also included in a rare area; thus, I understand your concern. To address your concern, I would like to suggest you some extra efforts to inform/disseminate yourworks to a wider science community. Your homepage, blog, RG discussion/answers, Academic edu, and so on could be helpful for your works to be exposed to the wider science community. If your papers win a scholarly award/prize, such an achievement will be much helpful for you to get a wider readership.
Question
4 answers
An enormous number of researchers are presented in this era. However, most of the scholars are following only trendy research. What are the key factors behind the researcher neglect to perform an out of box research?
(1) Time Consuming
(2) Economic Problem
(3) Competitive Career Growth
(4) Poor Thinking Environment
(5) Others
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello,
This is a very good question. It could be all factors (1)-(4). In addition, specialty, and political, social or cultural factors could be also reasons not to get out of the box.
I used to be a guy who LIKES to get out of the Box and I paid a Hefty Price. I used to work on problems that many mathematicians in my areas of research like to avoid. I had one major failure; FIVE long years in total were lost to one problem with no single paper. Another difficult problem took from me 3 additional years but I was able to finish this one. Four Additional papers took in average Each 18 months to finish.
I was naive to trust the guy who told me about the 5-yr failure problem. I thought Fame is awaiting me, and it never happened. I know first hand people, who also worked on some difficult problems on Math and had to quit the profession completely due to incomplete success and family issues.
Yes, family problems could also be a big factor. It is Good to be Bachelor if one is a mathematician!
Sincerely,
Farid
Question
5 answers
What are the benefits of research gate and what its different of googal scholar ?
Relevant answer
Answer
I mean google scholar
Question
68 answers
I do not understand about the 5 year impact factor, yearly IF, how IF can increase, and what the IF really means?
Relevant answer
Answer
It depends on the number of citations that articles in the journal have received within a specific time
Question
13 answers
When a scientific paper is published and appears at the journal web page online - what collection system is usually the first to include it in the index? Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Knowledge? In other words, where should I seek for the most recent papers, if not in the journal/publisher pages?
Relevant answer
Answer
Google is the fastest one.   
Question
12 answers
How long does Google Scholar take to update citations on the user profile? Is it possible that certain citations have been missed by Scholar?
Thanks in advance. 
Relevant answer
Answer
Google Scholar uses their own search engine to search and include research papers in their databases. They are quite accurate but not completely or 100 accurate as there are numerous journals and conference not  indexed by google scholar. So one way is to use ResearchGate , but RG also includes only those papers that are included in their own Database, thus also is limited.
you can also use other websites such as ResearcherID by Thomason Reuters, Scopus, Citeseer cites to track your citations. Also there is a tool by Harzing "Publish and Perish" to track your citations. 
However, most organisation and universities recognise Google Scholar as authentic metric to measure your citations and impact along with Scopus.com and JCR.
Is there any software for Google Scholar Citation Map on world?
Question
4 answers
I want see authors' country, who has cited someone's work, either as list or graph. Lets say, In how many country people has cited my work? Please let me know, if any such thing exist for Google scholar. I know its available for other sources.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi there... What you are looking for is hard and complex graph. Many factors made it a hard issue. For example,names how to know that this work is yours? each researcher must create a profile with thier papers. At that time it will be countable. Look at researchgate how many times they ask you if you are the autho of this paper and that paper. Another issue is the number of papers all around the word. How many papers are there? each database has different number. Who can construct the full and the complete graph? collaboration from researchers is requiered. I worked with citation network before. We collected 1M papers for citeseerx. However, crawling other ressources was undoable, such as, google scholar or IEEE. I think with the time google scolar or researchgate will generate this service
Question
9 answers
If the results more than 2000, how can we limit them, particularly when we conduct systematic reviews as the exclusion of articles will take long time till we reach to the most relevant studies.
Relevant answer
Hi there;
You can watch these YouTube videos; very helpful
Good luck
Question
4 answers
Nowadays, the Spanish Cybermetrics Lab ranks about 25 thousand universities and about 2 thousand OA-Repositories.
The third partial indicator “openness” of Webometric University Ranking depends on the filling of university OA-Repositories since Google Scholar finds “rich files” in these OA-Repositories.
This, in return is attributed to Google Scholar and OA-Repositories which operates as part of a single Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH). The above mentioned case history can be emphasized by the link http://www.bsu.edu.ru/en/news/detail.php?ID=318290 on Webometric Ranking of Belgorod State University (Russia).
I’m proposing that the university management should pay much attention on the above mentioned effect. In this context, how is the situation in other universities?
Relevant answer
Answer
Definitely, university library has to play a central changing  role  in this age of digitization, open access and ingesting in  different repositories research papers, data and cultural artifacts . They have to provide a proactive role to help scholars in research work  which  will accelerate citations factor , impact and overall rating.
Question
13 answers
I need that the website provides me APA and HARVARD style as a "cite" mode, without exporting it. Do you know how to do it? I know that citations styles change if the language is changes but I didn´t find how to have APA and Harvard as citation style in the same language.
Thanks!
Relevant answer
Answer
Thanks all! It's very useful although I thought that I could change the reference styles provided by Google Scholar... they should try to let you do it... it would be sooo easy then :)
Question
4 answers
I am try to complete a research report about the E-commerce strategy in Afghanistan, and I am searching for the background about infrastructure there. I have got some information in wiki and Google scholar,  but could someone provide me some article that could be cited in a scientific paper, or tell me where i can found them?
Question
3 answers
I have been looking on Google scholar and my university's data base but I can't find what paper this statistic comes from. It is thrown around so much that you think it would be easy to find. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Relevant answer
Answer
I assume you are referring to turtle hatchlings? I found a reference that might help. These authors report numbers in the vicinity of 0.001. I doubt, however, that it comes from just one paper. I would think that it is a general conclusion based on various studies.
Frazer, Nat B. "Survival from egg to adulthood in a declining population of loggerhead turtles, Caretta caretta." Herpetologica (1986): 47-55.
Question
3 answers
Can we use the number of citations on google scholar (for example) in order to know the importance of a subject in the scientific literature? The results are probably relevant for recent years, but for the years 1970-1980.
Relevant answer
Answer
If you or your employer have the appropriate subscriptions, you can also try other citation databases like Web of Science or Scopus (and in Mathematics Mathematical Reviews or Zentralblatt Math).
Also, there are very good free specialized databases in (Astro)Physics ADS, INSPIRE in High Energy Physics, DBLP in Computer Science, and PubMed in the life sciences.
All of the above databases have good coverage for older publications.
Question
3 answers
We would like to analyze data from Google Scholar - My Citations section where academic data is provided - such as citations, nr of published works, etc.  For this reason we need to draw a completely random sample of individuals registered in this database. Do you have any idea, how we can derive such information?
Relevant answer
Answer
This is how I would do it.
1. I'd use Python, in particular mechanize and Beautiful soup libraries, to build a scraper.
2. I'd use Google Chrome dev tools to see the html structure of Google Scholar result page.
3. I would create a set of scientific topics (not extremely detailed, for example: "fire safety engineering") to search on Google scholar.
4. The scraper would do the following:
a. launch a query on Google scholar for one of the topic you created in 3.
b. access each publication reported as result (mechanize can read all result pages, if more than one is present)
c. look at the authors of the publication and see which one as a link, i.e. is reported in the html in the <a> tag
d. follow the link and go to the author's page on Google scholar
e. gather the information needed on the author's page
f. proceed with the next author
g. if all authors with a link have been examined, proceed to the next publication
h. continue with the next topic on the list
5. Authors are filtered. Those already present are not stored to file.
6. Authors' data are saved .json format, because it's pretty flexible in terms of programs/languages (c++, python, javascript, ...) with which it can be used as well in terms of translation to other formats (for example latex or bibtex). Each author has an ID number, which is an integer value starting from 1.
7. To draw a random sample, I would use a generator of random integers and extract the corresponding authors from the database.
8. Compute some statistics on the extracted database.
There's a bit of coding, but once the code is working I think you can gather data for a number of authors in thousands/tens of thousands. The more queries of scientific topics you're able to create, and the more different they are (try to touch very different areas: physics, engineering, mathematics, psychology, sociology ...) the more random your final database will be.
I hope I've been of some help!
Question
38 answers
Is Google Scholar Metrics better than JCR and Scopus Rank? Why?
Relevant answer
Answer
I quote from our 2009 paper:
"Google Scholar™ (GS) is considered to be superior to the ISI Web of Science (WoS) or Elsevier Scopus sources for five reasons. First, GS expands data sources beyond ISI-listed journals to include additional scholarly sources such as books, dissertations, conference papers, and non-ISI journals. Second, GS’s search and retrieval considers all authors instead of only the first listed author. Failure to recognize an author’s contribution if he is not in the first author’s position under represents the influence of that author.7 Third, GS is able to aggregate minor variations of the same publication title into a single item. Fourth, GS includes Languages Other than English (LOTE) sources that are generally not included in the WoS. And fifth, GS has superior coverage of social science and computer science compared to WoS.
On the other hand, GS includes non-scholarly citations, has uneven coverage, and under represents older publications compared to the WoS. Also, GS’s automated search process occasionally returns nonsensical results and is not updated as frequently as WoS (Harzing, 2008a). However, GS’s inclusion of non-journal sources such as books, dissertations, and conference papers; retrieval for all authors; LOTE materials; and superior coverage of information systems items make it a superior tool that should be used in future studies of this type. (Truex, et al, 2009, p. 570)."
The citations are as follows:
Harzing, A.-W. (2008a) "Google Scholar - a new data source for citation analysis," http://www.harzing.com/pop_gs.htm (2/22/08, 2008).
Truex III, D. P., Cuellar, M. J., and Takeda, H. 2009. "Assessing Scholarly Influence: Using the Hirsch Indices to Reframe the Discourse," Journal of the Association of Information Systems (10:7), pp. 560-594.
Another paper you might want to consult is:
Mingers, J., and Lipitakis, L. 2009. "Counting the Citations: A Comparison of Web of Science and Google Scholar in the Field of Management." Canterbury, UK: Kent Business School, University of Kent.
Question
31 answers
Are any researchers who are undertaking systematic reviews also adding a search of google.scholar? And if so, what numerical limit are you putting on results that you inspect? In some earlier trials, I found that scholar returned in the order of at least 10x more results than did the more usual sources (like Medline) which I feel would then artificially distort the number of excluded articles in your flow diagram of articles to be included.
Relevant answer
Answer
From review of this issue I would conclude that:
(1) neither database (Google Scholar (GS), PUBMED) is sufficient for optimal discovery of all highly relevant content in a topical medical search;
(2) that there are several myths and misunderstanding concerning their true differences and divergent focus and specialization;
(3) that there is data to support the contention that Google Scholar can indeed be used effectively for systematic review provided one understands its unique modes of operation and execution;
(4) that one is better served seeing GS and PUBMED more as complimentary than as exclusive of one another; and that
(5) an optimal search process would involve multiple general search databases coupled with specialized collections, with searches being executed best in a highly articulated form (in GS for instance, using scope qualifiers in Boolean expressions). Below I provide the basis for these conclusions:
To begin with, the two search databases, Google Scholar and PUBMED, reflect different relevancy algorithms: PubMed uses algorithms based on MeSH terms, with the most recent articles reported at the top of the list (which likely have not had adequate time to be appropriately cited), while in stark contrast, Google Scholar's proprietary algorithms (first released in 2004 in beta) have been found to favor the number of citations as an important criterion in the initial list of articles, with date of publication not an important criterion [1,2].
GOING HEAD-TO-HEAD: GOOGLE SCHOLAR versus PUBMED
Several studies [3,4] suggest that Google Scholar searches compare favorably with PubMed searches but have both advantages and disadvantages. Another recent study [5], building on these foundations, focused on content relevance and article quality and suggests that the Google Scholar search engine retrieves more relevant, higher quality articles. And in a comparative study as to locating primary literature to answer drug-related questions, no significant differences were identified in the number of target primary literature articles located between the Google Scholar versus PUBMED databases [6]. In addition, as to a single focused query (risk factors for sarcoma) Google Scholar resulted in a higher sensitivity (proportion of relevant articles, meeting the search criteria), compared to PubMed which resulted in a higher specificity (proportion of lower quality articles not meeting the criteria, that are not retrieved) [7].
Similarly, one of the most recent and comprehensive robust studies, this one from the University of Rouen [8], examined explicitly the core question of "Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews", performing a study to assess the coverage of GS specifically for the studies included in systematic reviews, and to evaluate if GS was sensitive enough to be used alone for systematic reviews, in order ultimately to assess the percentage of studies which could have been identified by searching only GS; there were 738 original studies included in a specially constructed gold standard database. The results: GS retrieved all 738 studies (100% hits) mined from 29 systematic reviews, allowing the authors to conclude that "The coverage of GS for the studies included in the systematic reviews is 100%. If the authors of the 29 systematic reviews had used only GS, no reference would have been missed. With some improvement in the research options, to increase its precision, GS could become the leading bibliographic database in medicine and could be used alone for systematic reviews".
What this entails is that despite GS not covering all the medical literature, nonetheless its coverage of the studies of sufficient quality or relevance to be included in a systematic review was complete, so that if the authors of these 29 systematic reviews had relied only on GS, they would have obtained the very same results. In contrast, it's been shown that the recall ratios of Medline RCTs only ranges between 35% and 56% [9,10]. This is in essential agreement with still another recent study [5] where PubMed and Google Scholar searches were compared by evaluating the first 20 articles recovered for four clinical questions for relevance and quality, GS provided more relevant results that PubMed (although the difference was not significant), serving as another reminder that we should not overestimate the precision of PubMed in real life [8]).
LOOKING FORWARD
We await further enhancements to GS to provide reliable advanced search functions, a controlled vocabulary, and improved scope of coverage and currency, but even in the latest instantiation GS performs at a respectable level of recall and precision, and can be enhanced with judicious Boolean expressions and some undocumented qualifiers. All told, as the Rouen study concludes: "the coverage of GS is much higher than previously thought for high quality studies ". (And note that other comparisons have found GS more than credible; in a comparison with Web of Science/WoS [11], the study authors concluded that: "since its inception, GS has shown substantial expansion, and that the majority of recent works indexed in WoS are now also retrievable via GS"). And I would add one further caution: despite the correct claim of many advanced search features being absent from GS but present in PUBMED, nonetheless this has less relevancy that one might believe: only 7% of respondents used these features in their searches for the Canadian study [12], only 37% used controlled vocabularies, and only 20% used filters such as the Clinical Queries feature in PubMed [13,14]. Therefore, in the real-world rather than the theoretical domain, the two search technologies are less far apart than the advanced features suggested, when we look at actual usage patterns.
But the debate will certainly continue for some while, with divergent opinions [15,16]. But it is increasingly clear from a critical review of the data to date that the two databases should be considered complimentary and not mutually exclusive, each with unique advantages and tradeoffs: thus, noting that recent evidence suggests Google Scholar may have closed the gap between itself and PUBMED, and that it is now often leading in searches (with one family of journals reporting that 60% of their traffic is coming from Google Scholar, ahead of PUBMED and other traditional medical databases), University of Utah researchers [17] assessed efficiency and completeness of searching for known moderate and high quality RCTs in PubMed versus Google Scholar, finding that each database consistently identified one of the two highest quality studies, but neither database identified both, yet the difference search time was nearly three-fold (to accomplish the search by experienced researchers, it search time was 63 minutes for GS but 194 minutes for PUBMED, without the later providing any superior results). This again reflects what I have called the INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM OF MEDICAL SEARCH: namely that no single search is sufficient to identify all relevant quality studies, cross-confirmed in still another recent study where Canadian researchers [12] evaluated the recall (proportion of relevant articles found) and precision (ratio of relevant to nonrelevant articles) of searches performed in PubMed and Google Scholar, with primary studies included in the systematic reviews serving as the reference standard for relevant articles, finding that for For quick clinical searches, compared with PubMed, the average search in Google Scholar retrieved twice as many relevant articles (PubMed: 11%; Google Scholar: 22%), with precision being similar in both databases (PubMed: 6%; Google Scholar: 8%). And note that it would be tempting but erroneous to attribute the two-fold greater retrieval manifold as due to differences in content coverage, since 78% of the tested articles were available in BOTH databases.
These and other studies assessing different medical databases have demonstrated that no single search engine provides all the related articles, full capturing of the complete body of available literature on a subject requiring searches over multiple databases, depending on the topic. Thus, a much more comprehensive search would include cross-spectrum searching[18], and as an example I note that I myself use an extensive resource collectivity of approximately 18 databases and tools including ones for specialized content: see "METHODOLOGY FOR THIS REVIEW" below).
As to peer-review, often claimed a major factor that distinguishes Google Scholar (unrestricted) from PUBMED, in fact despite the widely held but erroneous belief that PubMed will only consider Peer Reviewed literature, it is explicitly stated on their website that this is not the case: “Most journals in PubMed are peer-reviewed or refereed. Non-editorial journal-staff review original articles before the articles are accepted for publication. Criteria for peer review and the qualifications of peers or referees vary among publishers. We have no list of peer-reviewed/refereed journals in PubMed; and you cannot limit your search to peer-reviewed journals using PubMed” [http://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/peerrev.html] [19].
USING ARTICULATED/SMART SEARCHES
Finally, it pays to learn how to execute articulated ("smart") searches in GS: thus, in answer to a question in another topic concerning searching for all systematic reviews and meta-analyses concerning HRV (heart rate variability), I advised the Google Scholar smart search (besides a MeSH-enriched PUBMED search):
insubject:"heart rate variability" intitle:("systematic review" | meta-analysis)
or the somewhat more permissive relaxed smart search:
insubject:"heart rate variability" intext:("review" | meta-analysis)
leveraging the power of the scope qualifiers "insubject", "intitle" and "intext" when coupled with appropriate Boolean operators. It also pays to remember that GS is an "opportunistic" search engine, as it will try to data-mine any resources that could be of relevance rather than honing to the more narrow constraints of a formal PUBMED search (often providing riches not otherwise easily uncovered, so that its claimed lesser precision is not at all necessarily a disadvantage, as some of the discovered resources (like dissertations, commissioned monographs, peer-reviewed CMEs, etc.) could themselves - as I have often found - contain bibliographical references to invaluable materials not located through PUBMED, that could greatly enrich the quality of any paper using its technology.
METHODOLOGY OF THE REVIEW
A search of the PUBMED, Cochrane Library / Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE/MedlinePlus, EMBASE, AMED (Allied and Complimentary Medicine Database), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science (WoS), BIOSIS, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts), SCEH (NHS Evidence Specialist Collection for Ethnicity and Health), and scope-qualified Boolean searches submitted to Google Scholar and SLIM, was conducted without language or date restrictions, and updated again current as of date of publication, with systematic reviews and meta-analyses extracted separately. Search was expanded in parallel to include just-in-time (JIT) medical feed sources as returned from Terkko (provided by the National Library of Health Sciences - Terkko at the University of Helsinki). Unpublished studies were located via contextual search, and relevant dissertations were located via NTLTD (Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations), OpenThesis or Proquest. Sources in languages foreign to this reviewer were translated by language translation software.
REFERENCES
1. Beel, J. & Gipp, B. Google Scholar's ranking algorithm: the impact of citation counts (an empirical study). Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science 2009a, 439–446.
2. Beel, J. & Gipp, B. Google Scholar's Ranking Algorithm: The impact of articles' age (an empirical study). Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations 2009b, 160–164.
3. Shultz, M. Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. JMIA 2007, 95, 442–445.
4. Anders, M. E. & Evans, D. P. Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar literature searches. Respiratory Care 2010, 55, 578–583.
5. Nourbakhsh E, Nugent R, Wang H, Cevik C, Nugent K. Medical literature searches: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar. Health Info Libr J 2012; 29(3):214-22.
6. Freeman MK, Lauderdale SA, Kendrach MG, Woolley TW. Google Scholar versus PubMed in locating primary literature to answer drug-related questions. Ann Pharmacother 2009; 43(3):478-84.
7. Mastrangelo, G. , Fadda, E. , Rossi, C. , Zamprogno, E. , Buja, A. & Cegolon, L. Literature search on risk factors for sarcoma: PubMed and Google Scholar may be complementary sources. BMC Research 2010, 3, 131–134.
8. Gehanno JF, Rollin L, Darmoni S. Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013; 13:7.
9. Türp JC, Schulte J, Antes G: Nearly half of dental randomized controlled trials published in German are not included in Medline. Eur J Oral Sci 2002, 110:405-411.
10. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Lusher A, Lefebvre C, Westby M: A comparison of hand searching versus MEDLINE searching to identify reports of randomized controlled trials. Stat Med 2002, 21:1625-1634.
11. de Winter JCF, Zadpoor AA, Dodou D. The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study. Scientometrics 2014; 98(2): 1547-1565.
12. Shariff SZ, Bejaimal SA, Sontrop JM, et al. Retrieving clinical evidence: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar for quick clinical searches. J Med Internet Res 2013; 15(8):e164.
13. Shariff SZ, Bejaimal SA, Sontrop JM, Iansavichus AV, Weir MA, Haynes RB, et al. Searching for medical information online: a survey of Canadian nephrologists. J Nephrol 2011;24(6):723-732.
14. Shariff SZ, Sontrop JM, Haynes RB, Iansavichus AV, McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, et al. Impact of PubMed search filters on the retrieval of evidence by physicians. CMAJ 2012 Feb 21;184(3):E184-E190.
15. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BM, Anderson P. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2013; 2:115.
16. Boeker M, Vach W, Motschall E. Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013; 13:131.
17. Thiese M, Effiong A, Passey D, Ott U, Hegmann K. Pubmed vs. Google Scholar: A Database Arms Race? BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22:A33.
18. Zheng B, Zheng W, Zhu Y, Guo C, Wu W, Chen C. Are PubMed alone and English literature only enough for a meta-analysis? Ann Oncol 2013; 24(4):1130.
19. Kejariwal D, Mahawar KK. Is Your Journal Indexed in PubMed? Relevance of PubMed in Biomedical Scientific Literature Today. WebmedCentral MISCELLANEOUS 2012;3(3):WMC003159.
Question
4 answers
All the good things we say about the GS database, such as open access, size, metrics, and algorithms, but when we use it for a scientometric study, we come to realize that the quality of the database is more important than its size. In searching an author query also retrieves citations of other authors with the same last name, but different initials for first and middle names. We cannot use this data until the unwanted records are removed. However, it can only be done done manually which may take hours if you have many authors
Having supervised the Cataloging Department for most part of my professional career, I would suggest that the GS should hire catalogers with the knowledge and experience in authority control and database maintenance. If they wish to outsource this job, there are many vendors available in the market.
I have proposed only one solution, What other things come to your minds. that you would like to suggest to improve the quality of the GS database?
Relevant answer
Answer
Those who can afford subscription-based citation databases, may not appreciate the value of GS for users in developing countries. The strength of GS is its retrieval rate of matching records between 92 and 100%. In our recent study, the hit rate was more than 98% The database has a good balance of low-impact and high-impact journals.For developing countries there is no other choice but to use Google,Scholar as they cannot afford to pay the high cost of Scopus or WoS. They have open access to GS.,the largest source database in the world and the possibility of  downloading approximately 20% articles in full-text..     
Question
134 answers
Regarding indexing of research publication
Relevant answer
Answer
Here is good resource on different metrics! "Comparing Google Scholar on the one hand and ISI and Scopus on the other hand provides mixed results. For the academics working in the Sciences, Google Scholar’s advantage over Scopus is larger than over ISI (except for the Computer Scientist). For the academics working in the Social Sciences and Humanities, this pattern is reversed in that Google Scholar’s advantage over ISI is larger than over Scopus.
However, in virtually all cases Google Scholar provide the highest citation count, reflecting its broader coverage in terms of sources compared to both ISI and Scopus and its longer coverage in time compared to Scopus."
Question
55 answers
Exporting the list of papers to Excel allow you to sort papers and delete duplicates
Relevant answer
Answer
I was looking for a method to do something similar. I found two workable solutions.
The best was to use the Publish or Perish software (http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm). It cycles through the pages of a Google Scholar search results list and copies the basic information for each result to a results list that can be copied in CSV or Excel format.
The other method was to use Zotero (www.zotero.org) as an add-on to Firefox. You can use it to save the results on a single page of a Google Scholar results list (maximum 20 items). The drawback of this is that there doesn't seem to be a way to cycle automatically through the entire results list.
Question
49 answers
Many organizations from different countries ask for citations/reports/h-index when an application is submitted. Historically, the standard method to report those values was a printout of the ISI webpage. However, my feeling is that, currently, Google Scholar is much more accurate indexing articles and references, as well as much faster. I have found many recent articles indexed by Google and not by ISI. I was wondering if this is something specific from my field, and if anybody has had issues with Google Scholar so far (e.g. duplicate publication, wrong number of references).
Relevant answer
Answer
From the content aspect, Scopus has 28 million record, against almost 37 million in ISI. Scopus includes 15.000 journal titles, and ISI includes 9000 journal titles. Actually there is a large overlap between Scopus and ISI. Google scholar is larger and larger than ISI and Scopus. Note that the smaller is better in publication quality.
Question
316 answers
There are several articles and textbooks that cite my articles but are not included as citations in my Google Scholar profile. Google Scholar says that the publishers of the corresponding journals should change their settings and there is nothing I can do. However, I was wondering whether anybody knows how we can add these missing citations to our profile in Google Scholar?
Relevant answer
Answer
Unfortunately, Google does not do much about missing citations.
Here is their solution:
The number of citations to one of my articles is too low. I know of several articles citing it that are not included in the list of citations. What I can do to help fix this?
"Your "Cited by" counts come from the Google Scholar index. You can change the articles in your profile, but citations to them are computed and updated automatically as we update Google Scholar.
To change the "Cited by" counts in your profile, you would need to have them updated in Google Scholar. Google Scholar generally reflects the state of the web as it is currently visible to our search robots and to the majority of users. If some of the citations to your article are not included, chances are that the citing articles are not accessible to our search robots or are formatted in ways that make it difficult for our indexing algorithms to identify their bibliographic data or references.
To fix this, you'll need to identify the specific citing articles with indexing problems and work with the publisher of these articles to make the necessary changes (see our inclusion guidelines for details). For most publishers, it usually takes 6-9 months for the changes to be reflected in Google Scholar; for very large publishers, it can take much longer."
Question
10 answers
Any algorithm ? Many Citations still go unrecognized !! But are still atleast entered or feeded manually by respective author. Why doesn't it use a universal, simple method to update its citations? I am also aware of the fact about the very large database of Google Scholar! I may be ignorant !!!
Relevant answer
Answer
I'm afraid that the google scholar citations algorithm is highly complex and depends on a number of complicated factors ..... no. Not really. Not like researchgate. Googling for "how does google scholar calculate citations" will tell you.
and anything else. As I recall, they require TWO instances of a paper on the web to believe it exists. And it has to be there for a good while. They also get all the publishers lists, of course.
From the above urls:
Now, what about the quality of citations? Google Scholar claims to pull citations from anywhere on the scholarly web into your Profile, but their definition of “the scholarly web” is less rigorous than many people realize. For example, our co-founder, Heather, has citations on her Google Scholar Profile for a Friendfeed post. And others have found Google Scholar citations to their work in student handbooks and LibGuides–not the worst places you can get a cite from, but still: Nature they ain’t.
Google Scholar citations are also, like any metric, susceptible to gaming. But whereas organizations like PLOS and Thomson Reuters’ Journal Citation Index will flag and ban those found to be gaming the system, Google Scholar does not respond quickly (if at all) to reports of gaming. And as researchers point out, Google’s lack of transparency with respect to how data is collected means that gaming is all the more difficult to discover.
The service also misses citations in a treasure-trove of scholarly material that’s stored in institutional repositories. Why? Because Google Scholar won’t harvest information from repositories in the format that repositories across the world tend to use (Dublin Core).
Question
6 answers
I use an institutional search facility that goes through 200+ databases, then collates the returns by discipline, subject, year etc.  It is great for getting an idea of where information comes from.
I use Google Scholar as an alternative (87-100% comparative accuracy when tested with published studies). Unfortunately, it just gives you a list of returns & the 'relevance' sorting is unreliable.  This means you have to go through each page, analysing & classifying individual items.
Q.  Other than manual cut/paste + analysis, has anyone got ideas how these returns can be presented in terms of information type etc. ?
Relevant answer
Answer
The Relevance of a Research paper is really required to be judged by you, the researcher, because only you know how well the paper relates to your current research work. This cannot yet be assessed reliably by a machine.
Proxies such as recency, number of inward or outward citations are poor proxies, as they do not take into account your research interests.
So you really need to assess your Relevance manually.
  1. In Scholar settings, push up results per page from 10 to 20.
  2. Use Qiqqa to Grab all PDFs on the page (i.e. 20 returns).
  3. Use Qiqqa Sniffer to find the bibliographic details.
  4. Use Qiqqa to Autotag all PDFs grabbed.
  5. Use Qiqqa to classify the themes automatically.
  6. Otherwise, tag the PDFs manually with your own categories such as discipline.
  7. Use Qiqqa relevance scale 1-5 so that you can sort them according to relevance to your research.
  8. Use Qiqqa annotation report to produce reports on themes.
Question
7 answers
I want to use Arduino uno for controlling flow through valve. please suggest me free available pdf book for programming of Arduino in Simulink/Matlab. pdf book should mainly focus on simulink tool of matlab with different examples
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello,
I use this two books: Regards
- Control System Design: Getting Started with Arduino and MATLAB witten by Mitsuo Hirata and Ivan Godler
- Getting Started with Matlab Simulink and Arduino written by Agus Kurniawan.
Regards
Question
4 answers
Hi.
I got a rs number for an SNP in an exome data. I looked different databases including ClinVar, dbSNP, Pubmed, Snpedia, google scholar, etc. but I could not find a related article and who reported this SNP. I was wondering if someone could help me to find an answer to my question?
Thank you.
Relevant answer
Question
23 answers
Some papers which I have uploaded in Research Gate had received some citations but the same paper which has been listed in the Google Scholar is not showing any citation. Is there any option to link the citation and/or article link from Research Gate to Google Scholar?
Relevant answer
Answer
1. Go to "My Citations" page of your Google Scholar 
2. Click on "Edit" button
3. Put your ResearchGate web url in the "Home Page" column
Question
5 answers
What is the mechanism used by the scientific websites to calculate the citations for the papers of each author? are they the same depending on the same database across all the major websites like "RESEARCHERID, GOOGLE SCHOLAR, RESEARCH GATE"? and if so, why sometimes you have deferent results in each?.
Relevant answer
Answer
Question
6 answers
Google scholar and other indexing web sites have a problem related to considering citations in articles written in Arabic. Perhaps the reason is that search engines cannot recognize Arabic letters in PDF files correctly, and consequently cannot recognize the references in these articles. Do have any experience and/or solutions related to this issue?
Best regards,
Relevant answer
Answer
I admit that I have no experience in writing arabic articles, but I notice occasionally is my Google Scholar profile authors of Arabic, Chinese and Korean language papers that are kind enough to cite me. Most of them have an english translated title and abstract printed together with the full article in the other language.
I think including this whenever possible can improve the chance of being indexed in Scholar and other databases, perhaps even RG.
Question
4 answers
I want to confirm the identity of some clinical isolates of E. coli, Staph. aureus, and S. typhi using PCR.
I am looking for a single pair of primers which can be used to produce PCR product of different lengths for the three different species. Preferably one where the amplicon length is already available in literature. I didn't find any such single pair in my search in Google Scholar and Pubmed.
Is there any such primer pair?
Relevant answer
Answer
Shadid,
You will need to download some 16S sequences and blast them together to find out the conserved regions and hypervariable regions. I've not done this before but I'm guessing you can design conserved primers that span the hvr so when you amplify you'd get different band sizes (as long as the hvr are different in size between species). otherwise it'll be a matter of sequencing the pcr products.
Question
6 answers
One of my papers is disappeared from google scholar last Wednesday. While its still published at IEEE xplore.
Relevant answer
Answer
Possible thing happened error, write an email for admin
Question
3 answers
I have come across certain journals eg: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATION RESEARCH AND REVIEW(IJIRR) which has impressive 4.2 Impact factor.
Relevant answer
Answer
The explanation is that useless journals show false impact factors in order to cheat authors.
Impact factor for a journal comes from WOS so it is not possible to have one without being registered in this database.
Question
10 answers
I'm doing my 1st Literature Review. Some GS search gave me back more than 1000 articles, I thougth use the more cited, but I realiced that those arent the more realted to my topic resech so I'm thinking select the, first n results, but I did find any resercher how made that.
I read about GR Rank, (order GS use to display results) and it considers the number of cites but also the numbre od the key words appears and if they wera in the title. Do you think its good idea, select for example the first 150 results and then I choose those more cited. Please give me or opinions and recommendations?
Thanks in Advance. ;) María
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Maria Rojas,
Literature searching is an art. The more you indulge, the more you learn. My humble suggestion is to use various Boolean operators (AND, OR or NOT) to combine search terms or search using different key terms using + or - signs, use quotation (inverted commas). You may also use truncation. A truncation character allows you to broaden your search by retrieving varying endings of your search term e.g Child* will retrieve articles that include the word child, children, childcare, children's, childhood.
Moreover, wildcards can also be used for searching. Substitute a wildcard symbol for letter(s) in a word. For example organi?ation will find organisation or organization. Wildcards are very useful in dealing with spelling variations. Remember symbols used may vary between the different databases, always check the individual database Help section.
Further, use "Phrase searching". This allows you to use a string of words instead of a single one. Many databases allow you to search for an exact phrase such as duty of care. However, some databases will require you to use inverted commas while other will require the use of brackets e.g. "duty of care". Check the Help section of the database. Last but not the least, change where your keywords are to be retrieved from by using database tools such as search in Abstract, Title, Author and so on.
Hope it ll help you.
Best wishes,
How to find the most cited papers in a corpus of other papers' references? Is there an automated way?
Question
30 answers
I would like to use a search engine like Google Scholar to export a big number of papers on a specific topic and analyse the exported papers looking for which are the most cited papers in the bibliographic references of those. I've found ways of listing the most used keywords using software like EndNote and Excel, but couldn't find much on how to list only the references. I think I can imagine how to do it manually, but an automated way would be so much better. In example: I want to find out whether Weber or Durkheim is the most cited author among the specific topic of sociology of science. So I have a corpus of papers in this topic and want to analyse its references.
Relevant answer
You can use softwares such as Sci2Tool. They have a small tutorial explaining how to use the main tools and it is pretty easy. There is an option where you can find the most cited documents in the references and I think you can export them to Excel. Best regards =)
Question
2 answers
I need to find validated instruments that can measure components of planned behavior:
Awareness of/about stimuli (e.g., intervention, service or program); Perception about stimuli (attitude about service, program or person performing service); and help-seeking intention (e.g., the likelihood of seeking service, person/provider, program, intervention in the future). Or, is there a tool that can measure Planned Behavior that incorporates these three constructs?
Any suggestions or ideas?  I have searched the Measurements Database for Social Science, Google Scholar, and my institution's library. I found instruction on "how" to create instruments, but no validated instrument that is in use.
Thank you for your help.
D. Reid
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you so much, Mohammad. I really appreciate your support!
Question
2 answers
I am trying to do literature search on coastal change studies in India. Currently, I am trying to use both Google scholar and citation software(mendeley) and export the result into a spreadsheet. But the results are showing studies done all over the world. I am looking for a way to search so that i get studies done in India only.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi Vivek
I think you should consider the databases "CrossAsia" (https://crossasia.org/) and BASE (https://www.base-search.net), to mention only two. "BASE" (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine) is a general international database (open access, fulltext articles...), containing scientific articles, thesis, documents..., whereas "CrossAsia" is devoted to scientific information concerning Asia.
Two examples (for narrow searches):
- When you do a search in CrossAsia with the keywords "coast* india* change stud*" you will receive 36 results.
- In BASE you can search with the following keywords: coast* india* "change study". You will get 4 results.
Beside this, there are well-known databases like Web of Science (WoS), Scopus.
With best regards
Anne-Katharina Weilenmann
Question
2 answers
I searched in National Science Foundations websites, google scholar, sciencedirect &... but could not find sufficient information about it. just an article about assessment process in Army Research Institute of America and NASA
Relevant answer
Answer
Take a look at the lessons learned from this article I wrote:  “Guiding Change as President of the Board of Trustees:  Learning from the Liminal Drama of It All,” Journal of Business Anthropology, Special Issue 2, Spring 2016: 105-137. 
Have you looked for the articles "that have stood the test of time" in your discipline?
Question
2 answers
Google Scholar has launched "Classic papers", an interesting initiative. I share the link to Google Scholar Blog.  Tell us if you agree with the result. https://scholar.googleblog.com/2017/06/classic-papers-articles-that-have-stood.html
Relevant answer
Answer
For the moment, they only appear to include papers from the year 2006, do it is not very comprehensive.
Question
4 answers
I do not find all of my citations
Relevant answer
Answer
Google scholar should in principal be able to find all the citations. However, if they dont find it, there might be some confusions with first name, last name, or short form of the names. You may try to adjust with all those variants and try to find your citations. Also there is lag time of average 1 - 2 weeks to get the papers in indexed in google scholar from the date of publication.
Question
3 answers
Do you know.......?
Relevant answer
Answer
no
Question
7 answers
Citation problems
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi Dear Mohammad!
Please visit home page of journal which published your article. Usually in a box such as "About us" you can find Indexing Information.
Question
6 answers
AK Scientific offers CNO at a much lower price ($70/100mg) compared to other vendors. I couldn't find any published paper on Google Scholar using their CNO.
Has anyone used theirs?  Are you satisfied with the results?
Thank you in advance. 
Relevant answer
Answer
We have recently published the general process used to make CNO, along with some basic characterization data - Open Access!
Question
1 answer
You can find our earlier studies similar to the one you are doing from our papers listed on my Google Scholar.
Relevant answer
Question
6 answers
Dear all, I am conducting an Epidemiological systematic review and MA, during my search of database I found some 10 studies in PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Science Citation Index.
Additionally, while searching google scholar I also found many articles related to my review questions but their quality arent good.
So, please help me. Should I include or exclude them? What about Publication bias?
Thank you all in advance for your time
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you Mr Butt for the clarification. It really helped.