The relative ineffectiveness of bibliographic search engines

5Citations
Citations of this article
42Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Your institution provides access to this article.

Abstract

The increasing number of scientific publications has made bibliographic search engines essential tools in all disciplines. These software-based devices, however, are far from perfect. Comparisons of software-based bibliographic search engines with complete lists of three authors' publications showed that reference citations were not generally available before 1970, and that the effectiveness of recovery was improving but was quite variable, yielding on average 36 percent of the publications. There was marked year-to-year inconsistency in the recovery of titles. The inconsistency could not be explained by differences in indexing due to journal reputation: there was no evident relationship between search effectiveness and journal impact factor, but the percentage of recovered citations was higher for indexed journals. Search engines are widely used in bibliographic searches performed for evaluating researchers, awarding promotions, or assessing journal performance. Given the ineffectiveness of search engines, their use in making such important personal and institutional decisions needs careful consideration. © 2005 American Institute of Biological Sciences.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Valiela, I., & Martinetto, P. (2005). The relative ineffectiveness of bibliographic search engines. BioScience. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0688:TRIOBS]2.0.CO;2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free