Commentary to Gusenbauer and Haddaway 2020: Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar andPubMed

Abstract

We read with considerable interest the study by Gusenbauer and Haddaway (Gusenbauer and Haddaway, 2020, Research Synthesis Methods, doi:10.1002/jrsm.1378) comparing the systematic search qualities of 28 search systems, including Google Scholar (GS) and PubMed. Google Scholar and PubMed are the two most popular free academic search tools in biology and chemistry, with GS being the number one search tool in the world. Those academics using GS as their principal system for literature searches may be unaware of research which enumerates five critical features for scientific literature tools that greatly influenced Gusenbauer's 2020 study. Using this list as the framework for a targeted comparison between just GS and PubMed, we found stark differences which overwhelmingly favored PubMed. In this comment, we show that by comparing the characteristics of the two search tools, features that are particularly useful in one search tool, but are missing in the other, are strikingly spotlighted. One especially popular feature that ubiquitously appears in GS, but not in PubMed, is the forward citation search found under every citation as a clickable Cited by N link. We seek to improve the PubMed search experience using two approaches. First, we request that PubMed add Cited by N links, making them as omnipresent as the GS links. Second, we created an open‐source command‐line tool, pmidcite, which is used alongside PubMed to give information to researchers to help with the choice of the next paper to examine, analogous to how GS's Cited by N links help to guide users. Find pmidcite at https://github.com/dvklopfenstein/pmidcite.

What every researcher should know about searching – clarified concepts, search advice, and an agenda to improve finding in academia

“…As Klopfenstein and Dampier 1 point out, Google Scholar is by far the most commonly used resource by researchers 8 . This is not a coincidence—it allows straightforward, user‐friendly access to its vast database of research records 9 .…”

“…We do not need to reinvent the wheel, yet we need to improve communication between library science/evidence‐based research methodologists (the applied) and information technology research, and importantly: the search systems we use on a daily basis (the technical). Klopfenstein and Dampier 1 demonstrate that: first, there is much room for improvement of search system workflows, features, and supported heuristics. Second, cross‐database integration might make sense to combine strengths of different databases (the coverage of Google Scholar and the specialized features of PubMed).…”

“…This means raising researchers' awareness and understanding about the objectives of searching, along with improving search heuristics and the search systems that make the avalanche of evidence accessible. Klopfenstein and Dampier 1 provide a good example of how best practices can be adopted across platforms and how researchers across disciplines can influence search system providers in how their systems should be improved.…”

“…We thank Klopfenstein and Dampier 1 for their comment on our paper and for acknowledging the need to improve both PubMed and Google Scholar with functionalities that each is currently missing. We welcome increased scrutiny of the functionality of search systems and assessing whether these are truly fit‐for‐purpose as we struggle with information overload, particularly in times of crises like the current COVID‐19 pandemic.…”

“…In this article, we go beyond our original article and put the work of Klopfenstein and Dampier 1 in a larger frame to discuss the kind of agenda setting needed to overhaul academic searching, and how this might be achieved by the research community.…”