• Directory
  • FAQ: about JURN
  • Group tests
  • Guide to academic search
  • JURN’s donationware
  • openEco: nature titles indexed

News from JURN

~ search tool for open access content

News from JURN

Category Archives: How to improve academic search

The Future of Search

25 Tuesday Jun 2019

Posted by David Haden in How to improve academic search, Official and think-tank reports, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

Mindshare UK’s The Future of Search (full report, free in public PDF) for those who use smartphones in the UK…

we tracked people’s search behaviour using ethnography, face-to-face workshops and neuroscience experiments surveying 1,800 UK smartphone users.

Physical access to academic libraries

11 Monday Mar 2019

Posted by David Haden in How to improve academic search, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

Access to academic libraries: an indicator of openness? (March 2019)…

academic library policies can place restrictions on public access to [such] libraries. […] This paper reports on a preliminary study [and finds that] physical entry and access to print and electronic resources in academic libraries is contracting. […] Most affected is the general, unaffiliated public.

initial sample for the study was fourteen medium to large research universities in Australia, Brazil, China, Hong Kong, Mexico, Singapore, South Africa, Taiwan, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Qresp 1.0

18 Monday Feb 2019

Posted by David Haden in How to improve academic search, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

Qresp, an open source tool for the automated collection, bundling and distribution of all supporting data and data-sets for a journal paper. Apparently it also auto-adds the required metadata and public discovery enhancements.

OOIR

12 Tuesday Feb 2019

Posted by David Haden in Academic search, How to improve academic search, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

The new OOIR List. Currently with 849 journals in its List, these being from Web of Science’s SSCI journals in social studies. 119 of the titles on the OOIR List are flagged as Open Access, though a good number of these are greyed-out and not tracked (because they don’t bother to also submit to CrossRef).

Evidently Web of Science only covers 119 such OA titles, which means its OA coverage in this area has hardly budged since 2015 when Web of Science was only showing 116 titles in OA in social studies.

Within that very limited range, what OOIR is trying to do with its titles seems interesting, by providing an aggregated ‘latest’ / ‘trending’ / ‘active journals’ dashboard. It’s neatly presented, and there are also per-journal metrics over on the Statistics tab.

Apparently the service is focussed on recent papers, and “OOIR does not link to papers published before Nov 2018”. A previous RSS-feed based version, for politics and diplomacy, was titled Observatory of International Relations (OIR). But this has now been shut in favour of OOIR.

I guess the question now is, would it be possible to build something bigger and similar and slightly shinier, that could provide a public tracking-dashboard for all such material of use to those interested in timely new research on politics, diplomacy and related matters? Zak Kallenborn has some ideas on that in his recent article “Academic Paywalls Harm National Security”.

How to turbocharge your repository

07 Thursday Feb 2019

Posted by David Haden in How to improve academic search, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

“Repository optimisation & techniques to improve discoverability and web impact: an evaluation” (2018)…

provides persuasive evidence that specific enhancements to technical aspects of a repository can result in significant improvements to repository visibility […] traffic to Strathprints from Google and Google Scholar was found to increase by 63% and 99% respectively.

Error rates for Google Scholar citation parsing

15 Thursday Nov 2018

Posted by David Haden in Academic search, How to improve academic search, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

Another new prodding of Google Scholar, this time from the latest First Monday “Testing Google Scholar bibliographic data: Estimating error rates for Google Scholar citation parsing”…

While data quality is good for journal articles and conference proceedings, books and edited collections are often wrongly described or have incomplete data. We identify a particular problem with material from online repositories [where there appears to be] considerable inhomogeneity in the implementation of data standards [and] a mismatch between repository software and the harvesting protocols employed by Google Scholar.

One of Scholar’s other problems is that it includes Google Books results. While 30% of the time its Google Books inclusions can useful, there is no way to exclude Books results. One might want to exclude because Scholar still can’t seem to determine a proper book from a robot-produced shovelware ebook that assembles public-domain content. Scholar has no ‘edition authority’ which states that the Joshi-edited and annotated Penguin Classics edition of H.P. Lovecraft’s “Dexter Ward” is the gold-standard and that it has a text that has been fully corrected of the many textual errors, omissions and editing mistakes of previous decades. Unlike the public-domain shovelware ebooks that flood Amazon and (often) Google Books.

A basic undergraduate level search, for instance, for Lovecraft “Dexter Ward”, demonstrates the problem on the first page. Joshi is nowhere to be seen, and the searcher is hammered by links to shovelware ebooks (or worse), often with citation counts that suggest they are legitimate.

Block autosuggestions from the Google Scholar search box

05 Monday Nov 2018

Posted by David Haden in How to improve academic search, JURN tips and tricks

≈ Leave a comment

For those who know what they’re looking for, and how to type… here’s how to block the dumb auto-suggestions from appearing on the Google Scholar search-box:

1. In the UBlock Origin Web browser addon, open the My Filters list (Go: Icon | Slider Controls Icon | My filters tab).

2. Paste in the line…

google.*##[class^="gs_md_"]

3. Save the List and exit it. Reload Google Scholar, and the flickery and distracting (and almost always very wrong) drop-down suggestions are gone.

A variant of the above ‘block line’ with probably also work in similarly advanced ad-blocker addons.

“Google Scholar, Web Of Science, and Scopus: A Systematic Comparison of Citations”

16 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by David Haden in How to improve academic search, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

A new preprint on arxiv.org, “Google Scholar, Web Of Science, and Scopus: A Systematic Comparison of Citations in 252 Subject Categories”.

Google Scholar’s… “citation data is essentially a superset of WoS and Scopus, with substantial extra coverage.” This is partly because “Google Scholar is able to pick up citations… “from non-journal sources … including theses, books, conference papers, and unpublished materials … Many were non-English (19%-38%), and they tended to be much less cited than citing sources that were also in Scopus or WoS.”

However, there are also warnings in the conclusions section, especially that in Google Scholar… “some of the citations [come] from Master’s theses”. Also note that Google Scholar’s citation counts were found to be “lower in the Humanities”.

New book: Shadow Libraries

21 Monday May 2018

Posted by David Haden in How to improve academic search, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

New from MIT Press and under CC, Shadow Libraries: Access to Educational Materials in Global Higher Education (PDF). Also available in paperback via Amazon etc. Surveys the evolution of the trend that has today become Sci-Hub, Libgen.io etc.

New paper: Academic Web Search Engines, 2014-2016

22 Saturday Jul 2017

Posted by David Haden in Academic search, How to improve academic search, Spotted in the news

≈ Leave a comment

“An Evidence-Based Review of Academic Web Search Engines, 2014-2016”… “This article seeks to summarize research concerning Google Scholar, Google Books, and Microsoft Academic from the past three years”.

Useful. Interesting snippets from this excellent new summary survey:

* Weiss noted, “no critical studies seem to exist on the effect that Google Books might have on the contemporary reference experience” (Weiss 2016, 293). […] Research is badly needed about the coverage and utility of both Google Books and Microsoft Academic.”

   Seriously? None, not one single study from 2005-2015? For one of the most important innovations in books since Gutenberg? Wow. That’s one hell of a grudge you’re holding there, librarians.

* “In September 2016, Hug et al. […] noted Microsoft Academic has “grown massively from 83 million publication records in 2015 to 140 million in 2016″ […] As of February 2017 its index contains 120 million citations.”

   Great news, which means I’ll have to take another look at that. I’m overdue for doing another big ‘group test’ of OA coverage in public search-engines, so this news may spur that. Of course, “citations” are not full-text, but 120m is impressive.

* “Bonato [2016] noted Google Scholar retrieved different results with Advanced and Basic searches”

   So that’s another thing to take into account if I do another group-test this summer.

* A “glaring lack of research related to the [search] coverage of arts and humanities scholarship” [and specifically] “Little is known about coverage of arts and humanities by Google Scholar.” [and it is evident that arts and humanities scholars’] preferences and behavior […] cannot be inferred from the vast literature focused on the sciences.”

* “research concerning the use of academic web search engines by undergraduates, community college students, high school students, and other groups would be welcome.”

* “Scholar results have been said to contain “clutter””.

   This is the closest the paper comes to mentioning all the predatory journals and similar dubious items, which get dragged into Scholar by automated collection bots.

* “During interviews of 20 historians by Martin and Quan-Haase (2016) concerning serendipity, five mentioned Google Books and Google Scholar as important for recreating serendipity of the physical library online.”

   Yes, serendipity is vital. It’s more of a loosely chain-linked set of serendipity loops during search-based research, really, interspersed with deep-dives to get tiny confirming nuggets of fact (e.g.: was Borges correct when he suggested that The Time Machine‘s famous central motif of ‘the future-flower’ was almost certainly not influenced by a striking passage in Coleridge’s notebooks? Yes he was, presumably by a private letter of enquiry to some learned bibliophile in London. But he was characteristically recondite on this point in the essay, and thus can only be proved correct if you do the 30 minute deep-dive to the primary sources needed to get the exact month-of-publication dates in 1895).

* “arts and humanities scholars […] commonly expressed the belief that having a complete list of research activities online improves public awareness [with] the enormous potential for this tool’s use.”

   Might be more useful to have a rolling listing of what’s not being done, but which needs to be done. Sort of like a speculative Kickstarter, only you’d gather people rather than cash.

* “Gardner (2016) showed […] people working in the humanities and religion and theology prefer to use Google”. “Humanities scholar use of Google over Google Scholar was also found by Kemman et al. (2013); Google, Google Images, Google Scholar, and YouTube were used more than JSTOR or other library databases”

* “Namei and Young’s [2015] comparison of Summon, Google Scholar, and Google using 299 known-item queries. They found Google Scholar and Summon returned relevant results 74% of the time; Google returned relevant results 91% of the time.”

* “In Yang’s (2016) study of Texas Tech’s DSpace IR [the university repository], Google was the only search engine that indexed, discovered, or linked to PDF files supplemented with metadata; Google Scholar did not discover or provide links to the IR’s PDF files, and was less successful at discovering metadata.”

   I’m guessing this possibly illustrates the value of separating a university’s big dumpy Digital Collections from the nimble research repository, by putting them on different domains? Texas Tech’s DSpace has them both cheek-by-jowl, and adds a Law repository for good measure.

* “IR platform and metadata schema dramatically affect discovery, with some IRs nearly invisible (Weideman 2015; Chen 2014; Orduña-Malea and López-Cózar 2015; Yang 2016) and others somewhat findable by Google Scholar (Lee et al. 2015; Obrien et al. 2016).”

* “Another area needing investigation is the visibility of links to free full text in Google Scholar.” [and more generally] “retrieval of full text, which is another area ripe for more research studies, especially in light of the impressive quantity of full text that can be retrieved without user authentication.” […] “When will academic users find a good-enough selection of full-text articles that they no longer need the expanded full text paid for by their institutions?”

   Indeed.

There are also good formulations of four future-research questions specific to the arts and humanities (pages 27-28).

← Older posts
Subscribe: RSS News Feed.
I'm on Patreon!

JURN:

  • JURN : as a browser addon
  • JURN : directory of ejournals
  • JURN : main search-engine
  • JURN : openEco directory
  • JURN : repository search

Related sites:

  • 4 Humanities
  • Above the Fold
  • Accuracy in Academia
  • Addsearch (CSE alternative)
  • Alliance Defending Freedom
  • ALPSP
  • alt.academy
  • AMIR
  • Anterotesis
  • Arcadia project
  • Archive Team
  • Arnetminer
  • Art Historicum (German)
  • AWOL
  • Beall's List (updated at 2018)
  • Beall’s List (old)
  • Beyond Search
  • Bibliographic wilderness
  • Booktwo
  • Campus Reform
  • Charleston Advisor
  • Coalition for Networked Information
  • Common Crawl
  • Communia (public domain watchdog)
  • Copy, Shake, and Paste
  • Cost of Knowledge
  • Council of Editors of Learned Journals
  • Current Cites
  • Dan Cohen
  • Digital Campus
  • Digital Koans
  • Digital Shift
  • Dissernet (Russian anti-plagiarism)
  • DOAB
  • doai.io (alt. DOI resolver)
  • DOAJ
  • Don't Block TOR
  • eFoundations
  • EIFL
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • ELO
  • Embargo Watch
  • ePublishing Trust for Development
  • Facebook: Arab Open Access
  • Facebook: Italian Open Access
  • Facebook: Open Access India
  • Film Studies for Free
  • FIQ
  • FIRE
  • Flaky Academic Conferences
  • Found History
  • Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
  • Free Speech Tech Alliance
  • Go to Hellman
  • Google Algorithm
  • Google Scholar Digest
  • Harvard OA Tag Team (discoverability feed)
  • Heterodox Academy
  • Hybrid Publishing
  • Iconclass
  • IFLA Serials blog
  • ImpactStory
  • infoDocket
  • InTech Blog
  • Intl. Journal of the Commons
  • Jinfo (formerly Free Pint)
  • Keepers' Registry
  • Kindle blog
  • L'edition Electronique (French)
  • La Criee : periodiques (French)
  • Leader Statement Database on Free Speech
  • LibX Fulltext Linker
  • Mark Ware
  • Monographer
  • National Association of Scholars
  • National Coalition of Independent Scholars
  • Neil Beagrie
  • OA Lookup : Fees
  • OA Lookup : Policies
  • OA Working Group
  • OASPA
  • Online Searcher
  • Open Academic Society
  • Open Access Bibliography
  • Open Access News (archive)
  • Open Access Newsletter
  • Open Access Week
  • Open and Shut?
  • Open Electronic Publishing
  • Open Folklore
  • Open Humanities list
  • Open Knowledge Maps
  • Open Library of Humanities
  • Periodiques en ligne (French)
  • Peter Murray Rust
  • PKP / OJS
  • Professor Watchlist
  • Project Gutenberg
  • Publishers for Development
  • Publishing Archaeology
  • Quackwatch
  • Quillette
  • RBA Blog
  • Research Information
  • Research Remix
  • Retraction Watch
  • Right to Research
  • River Valley TV
  • ROARS (Italian)
  • Scholarly Communication News
  • Scholarly Electronic Publishing
  • Scholarship Matters
  • Search Engine News
  • Searchblox
  • Searcher
  • Semantico
  • Serials Cataloger
  • Serials Review
  • Society of Young Publishers
  • SPARC
  • Speech First
  • TaxoDiary (taxonomies news)
  • Taxpayer Access
  • The Keepers
  • The Scholarly Kitchen
  • Thoughts from Carl Grant
  • Unlocking Research
  • Web Scale Discovery
  • Web Scale Discovery mag
  • Zotero blog

Some of the libraries linking to JURN

  • AIATSIS
  • Boston College Libraries
  • Brooklyn Public Library, NY
  • Duke University
  • Florida State Universities
  • Gulf University, Kuwait
  • Kobe University, Japan
  • Northwestern University
  • Rhode Island College
  • San Jose State University
  • UConn Stamford
  • Université Paris
  • University College Cork
  • University of Brittany
  • University of California
  • University of Cambridge (Casimir Lewy Library)
  • University of Canberra
  • University of Georgia
  • University of Lille
  • University of Rennes
  • University of Tanzania
  • University of Toronto
  • URFIST de Bretagne
  • Washington University
  • West Virginia University
  • York University

Spare BitCoins? Please send donations to JURN via: 17e2KGuyzjzEEE7BsoYTwMo3MtUod6DrjP

Archives

  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy