Types of Errors Hiding in Google Scholar Data

Sauvayre, Romy

doi:10.2196/28354

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A relatively common point, but one which can play a fundamental role in the results, is the selection of the search platform. Among the databases most used by researchers in the biomedical and health areas, PubMed is one of the most used [17]. PubMed's function is to be a free digital collection through a search and retrieval system called Entrez, which integrates several databases and can be accessed through the Entrez system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Evaluation of Undergraduates’ Knowledge about Scientific Research in Databases during the COVID-19 Pandemic

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: COVID-19 pandemic times forced health education to go online, and, due to this necessity, long-term difficulties in education such as bibliographic search in databases like PubMed might have worsened even when platforms such as PubMed provide helping mechanisms to the user. These difficulties or even complete lack of knowledge are, unfortunately, not well documented in the literature. Therefore, this study aimed to describe doubts, lack of knowledge and questions of researchers regarding bibliographic research in PubMed as well as to solve all of those doubts by developing a didactic e-book in relation to bibliographic research in PubMed. Methods: This cross-sectional and populational-based study was conducted between January and April 2021. In northern Brazil, a total of 105 dentistry undergraduate students (DUS) received an anonymous digital form (Google® Forms Platform) using a non-probabilistic “snowball” sampling technique. The digital form was composed of four blocks of dichotomous and multiple-choice questions. After signing the informed consent term, the DUS were divided into three groups according to their period/semester in the dentistry program during the study time (G1: 1st period/semester; G2: 5th period/semester and G3: 10th period/semester). A total of 25 questions referring to demographic, educational and knowledge data about how to do scientific research and how to use bibliographic search in PubMed were asked, and all data were presented as descriptive percentages and then analyzed using the Chi square and G tests. Results: From 105 (100%), G1 had 29/105 (27.6%); G2 had 37/105 (35.2%); G3 had 39/105 (37.2%), the average age was 22.34 years and most participants were female 85/105 (81%). Among our sample, 56/105 (53.4%) had not used any type of search strategy, and 96/105 (91.4%) used database research methods. The main database for literature search used was Scielo 92/105 (87.6%), and 63/105 (60%) had general questions or doubts about bibliographic research. All these data had statistical significance p < 0.0001. Conclusions: The results demonstrate a lack of knowledge and doubts in DUS from three different periods/semesters, and this collected information can help in the formation of didactic material to solve such doubts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Evaluation of Undergraduates’ Knowledge about Scientific Research in Databases during the COVID-19 Pandemic

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite being useful to clinicians, there is an increase in screen-filtering time for researchers (Falagas et al 2008;Nourbakhsh et al 2012). The excessive number of false or unrelated results considerably increases the risk of failure with a single use of this database (Morshed and Hayden 2020;Sauvayre 2022). Very few articles were published comparing SciELO and LILACS databases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of bibliographic databases features regarding oral and maxillofacial surgery literature

Brozoski

Grillo

Silva

et al. 2022

RSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to provide a bibliometric analysis of the literature on oral and maxillofacial surgery, comparing different databases and discussing the advantages, disadvantages, and specific features of each one. A bibliographical search for oral and maxillofacial surgery literature was conducted on Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, SciELO, LILACS, and Google Scholar. Seven different search strategies were used on each database. VOSViewer and Microsoft Excel were used for tabulation and data visualization. Some statistical tests were performed with a 95% confidence interval, which was considered significant. A table comparing the number of articles obtained during seven different literature searches was created. A correlogram created in RStudio showed the correlation between the number of articles in the different databases evaluated. The functionalities of each database were compared. It is recommended to use more than one database when searching for literature related to surgery. Among the analyzed databases, PubMed stands out for its functionalities, precision, and quantity of available articles.

show abstract

“…It is preferable to manually add one’s publications to the Google Scholar profile since the automated function is highly error-prone. 8,9…”

Section: Author Profilesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is preferable to manually add one's publications to the Google Scholar profile since the automated function is highly error-prone. 8,9 The National Center for Biotechnology Information from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA, (through PubMed) provides an option to create an author profile. This enables the manual addition of publications to one's bibliography, with a further option to share such information publicly through a web link.…”

Section: Researcher Profilesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Researcher, author and reviewer profiles

Misra

Ravindran²

2022

Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need for researcher, author and reviewer profilesAcademic publishing in the present day, particularly in the field of medicine, has almost universally moved on to platforms that are accessible online. This has the advantage of making one's research accessible to anyone on the World Wide Web, particularly with the current emphasis on openaccess publishing. Over the past two decades, publishing databases and independent agencies have realized the need to consolidate the research outputs from individuals in a manner that is easily accessible. A potential issue in this context is that a particular author might be known by different names on research papers. For example, Robin David Williams might be known as 'Robin David Williams', 'Robin D Williams', 'R D Williams', 'Robindavid Williams' or 'R Williams'. There might also be more than one Robin David Williams. Slight errors in the surname can also limit the ability to identify accurately the authors of a particular manuscript. It is therefore essential to disambiguate author names to correctly attribute authorship credit. This is particularly relevant given the prevalent recommendations for authorship from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) which mandates that all authors should be responsible for the integrity of the research work and shall be deemed answerable about any queries that might emerge after the article has been published. 1 Researcher profiles provide a summary of the research output, peer review or editorial activities, funding, and awards of individual researchers. On the other hand, author profiles mostly list publications, although some overlap does occur between the functionalities of aforementioned two profiles. Peer review forms an important but remained a poorly acknowledged indicator of academic output, until recently when websites such as Publons which emerged over the past decade. They enable peer reviewers to maintain an online record of their reviewer activities. In this editorial, we discuss the various researcher, author and reviewer profiles (Table 1) that are commonly used in academia today.

show abstract

Types of Errors Hiding in Google Scholar Data

Cited by 8 publications

References 52 publications

Digital Evaluation of Undergraduates’ Knowledge about Scientific Research in Databases during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Digital Evaluation of Undergraduates’ Knowledge about Scientific Research in Databases during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Comparison of bibliographic databases features regarding oral and maxillofacial surgery literature

Researcher, author and reviewer profiles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About