The Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI, now Thomson Scientific, Philadelphia, PA) citation databases have been used for decades as a starting point and often as the only tools for locating citations andsor conducting citation analyses. The ISI databases (or Web of Science [WoS]), however, may no longer be sufficient because new databases and tools that allow citation searching are now available. Using citations to the work of 25 library and information science (LIS) faculty members as a case study, the authors examine the effects of using Scopus and Google Scholar (GS) on the citation counts and rankings of scholars as measured by WoS. Overall, more than 10,000 citing and purportedly citing documents were examined. Results show that Scopus significantly alters the relative ranking of those scholars that appear in the middle of the rankings and that GS stands out in its coverage of conference proceedings as well as international, non-English language journals. The use of Scopus and GS, in addition to WoS, helps reveal a more accurate and comprehensive picture of the scholarly impact of authors. The WoS data took about 100 hours of collecting and processing time, Scopus consumed 200 hours, and GS a grueling 3,000 hours. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

/pdf/impact-of-data-sources-on-citation-counts-and-rankings-of-2tnouh7btp.pdf

Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar

This paper compares the h-indices of a list of highly-cited Israeli researchers based on citations counts retrieved from the Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar respectively. In several case the results obtained through Google Scholar are considerably different from the results based on the Web of Science and Scopus. Data cleansing is discussed extensively.

https://sci2s.ugr.es/sites/default/files/files/TematicWebSites/hindex/Bar-Ilan2008.pdf

Which h-index? — A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar

Social media are increasingly being used as an information source, including information related to risks and crises. The current study examines how pieces of information available in social media impact perceptions of source credibility. Specifically, participants in the study were asked to view 1 of 3 mockTwitter.compages that varied the recency with which tweets were posted and then to report on their perceived source credibility of the page owner. Data indicate that recency of tweets impacts source credibility; however, this relationship is mediated by cognitive elaboration. These data suggest many implications for theory and application, both in computer-mediated communication and crisis communication. These implications are discussed, along with limitations of the current study and directions for future research.

/pdf/social-media-as-information-source-recency-of-updates-and-5fi9jzvly6.pdf

Social Media as Information Source: Recency of Updates and Credibility of Information

Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review

Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the Literature

This article presents the results of a 2003 undergraduate library user survey as a case study of Generation Y. Survey data support four main traits attributed to Generation Y, which are discussed within the context of library use and satisfaction. Implications for future directions in academic library services based on the new ways Generation Y learn and use the library are explored.

/pdf/what-students-want-generation-y-and-the-changing-function-of-16l3s9kqm2.pdf

What Students Want: Generation Y and the Changing Function of the Academic Library

Purpose – To provide a summary of the main features of Google Scholar.Design/methodology/approach – Reviews, contextualizes and provides a summary of Google Scholar.Findings – This article compares the results of a sample search on “homeschooling in Google Scholar against the results in three fee‐based article index databases in the social sciences: PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index, and ERIC. Comparisons are done in the areas of content, currency, relevancy, and overlap. Google Scholar yields more results and a greater variety in its types of sources along with a higher rate of relevancy, but less currency. Ultimately, Scholar’s lack of quality control and inability to let the user manipulate data make it less effective than the fee‐based databases at finding scholarly material in the social sciences.Originality/value – Provides a useful summary for information professionals.

Gaga over Google? Scholar in the Social Sciences

Personal Response Systems (PRS) can be used for instant, interactive assessment during library instruction sessions. The technology is a good active learning tool for today's freshmen, who are at the dualistic stage of cognitive development and enjoy using technology to learn. The benefits and barriers of PRS are discussed within the context of library instruction. Introduction Administering a one-shot library instruction session on first-year college students is a challenge. Personal Response System (PRS) technology allows a new form of active learning to take place that simultaneously yields immediate assessment data to the librarian. Students use it to answer multiple choice questions anonymously via handheld devices, and the immediate results allow for better customization of the library instruction. This article discusses previous active learning methods used in library instruction and explains why PRS is an exciting new active learning tool for today's technologically savvy freshmen. It also describes the hardware and software and discusses the benefits and challenges of using PRS to enhance library instruction. Active Learning in Library Instruction The concept of "active learning" is not new to the field of librarianship. Drueke, Allen and Lorenzen have all documented the rise of the active learing movement. [1] When trying to define active learning, many researchers cite Bonwell and Eisen, who in their 1991 report gave several descriptive characteristics now considered definitive. With active learning, students must do more than merely sit in class and listen to the instructor teach: instructors place less emphasis on the mere transmission of information and more on developing students' skills. Students are involved in higher order thinking processes like analysis, synthesis and evaluation while performing activities such as reading, discussion, and writing. Active learning places more emphasis on students' exploration of their own attitudes and values and requires both physical and psychological energy. [2] Some question if there is a difference between learning and active learning, and posit that all learning is by definition active. There is, however, evidence that students learn more when they are actively engaged in a classroom setting, as opposed to merely passively sitting and listening to a lecture. Students dislike the lecture format because it bores them, and they do not retain much from the lecture beyond the first few minutes. [3] Bonwell also notes that the lecture is "less effective in promoting thought or in changing attitudes." [4] The literature provides the following examples of active learning for teaching faculty and librarians. Bonwell, speaking in general terms, writes about the modified lecture, tests and quizzes, classroom discussion, writing in class, and case studies. [5] Ragains used the "jigsaw method" of classroom discussion in his library research classes at Montana State University, Bozeman, and found through informal assessment that students enjoyed these sessions better and that it inspired more commitment to library instruction from the teaching faculty involved.[6] Mahry wrote about "cooperative learning" techniques she used at the University of Minnesota, in which she recognized that if she were willing to "give up some control, students will learn more and retain that knowledge longer." [7] Krajewski and Piroli, at Simmons College, learned to combine their old instructional styles with new elements of active learning, and created successful and innovative self guided tours and a game of "library jeopardy" for their students. [8] Active Learning for Freshmen There is evidence that some active learning library instruction experiments were not entirely successful because students had trouble seeing the relationship between the abstract "active learning" exercise and the research skills needed to complete an assignment. …

Susanna Eng

Papers

What Students Want: Generation Y and the Changing Function of the Academic Library

Gaga over Google? Scholar in the Social Sciences

New Assessment Technology: The PRS Alternative