{"id":21853,"date":"2018-11-14T23:55:40","date_gmt":"2018-11-14T22:55:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jurnsearch.wordpress.com\/?p=21853"},"modified":"2018-11-14T23:55:40","modified_gmt":"2018-11-14T22:55:40","slug":"google-scholar-at-389-million","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/2018\/11\/14\/google-scholar-at-389-million\/","title":{"rendered":"Google Scholar at 389 million"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Michael Gusenbauer, &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s11192-018-2958-5\">Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases&#8221;<\/a>, <em>Scientometrics<\/em>, November 2018.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The findings provide first-time size estimates of ProQuest and EBSCOHost and indicate that Google Scholar\u2019s size might have been underestimated so far by more than 50%. By our estimation Google Scholar, with 389 million records, is currently the most comprehensive academic search engine.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>With the later proviso that there are likely to be many duplicates and near-duplicates, with such tools reporting&#8230;<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>the number of all indexed records on a database, not the number of unique records indexed. This means duplicates, incorrect links, or incorrectly indexed records are all included in the size metrics provided by ASEBDs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>As you can see, the article coins the ugly and unreadable &#8220;ASEBDs&#8221; for &#8220;academic search engines and bibliographic databases&#8221;.  MASTs might be more mellifluous &mdash; Massive Academic Search Tools.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Michael Gusenbauer, &#8220;Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases&#8221;, Scientometrics, &hellip;<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/2018\/11\/14\/google-scholar-at-389-million\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21853","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-academic-search","category-spotted-in-the-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21853","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21853"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21853\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21853"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21853"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21853"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}