Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough.
Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2288-13-131
复制
发表时间：
2013-10-26
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Motschall E
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Boeker M;Vach W;Motschall E
最近的研究表明，谷歌学者搜索系统评价的召回率很高。这些报告提高了人们对谷歌学者作为一个统一且易于使用的搜索界面的期望。然而，关于谷歌学者的报道的研究很少以现实的方式使用搜索界面，而只是检查是否存在黄金标准参考文献。此外，在与专业文献检索工具进行比较时，必须考虑到Google搜索界面的严重局限性。这项工作的目的是衡量在科学文献检索中传统的结构化搜索程序的条件下，使用Google Scholar进行搜索的相对查全率和查准率；并概述Google Scholar搜索界面在科学文献检索中的当前优势和劣势。从14篇Cochrane系统评价中检索到一般的和特定于MEDLINE的搜索策略。Cochrane系统回顾的搜索策略在考虑了原始搜索语义的情况下，尽可能好地表达了Google学者的搜索表达。检查Cochrane综述中纳入的研究的参考文献是否包含在Google Scholar搜索的结果集中。计算相对召回率和查准率。我们调查了Cochrane综述，纳入的参考文献数量在11到70之间，总共396篇参考文献。谷歌学者的搜索结果在4,320到67,800之间，总共有291,190个匹配。Google Scholar搜索的相对召回率最低为76.2%，最高为100%(7次搜索)。谷歌学者搜索的精确度最低为0.05%，最高为0.92%。所有搜索的总体相对召回率为92.9%，总体精确度为0.13%。报道的相对召回必须谨慎解读。它是Google Scholar的一个质量指标，仅限于试验性设置，由于Google Scholar搜索界面的严重限制，在系统检索中无法使用。目前，Google Scholar没有提供系统科学文献检索的必要元素，例如用于增量查询优化的工具、大量参考文献的导出、可视化搜索构建器或历史功能。谷歌学者还没有准备好作为一种专业的搜索工具，用于需要结构化检索方法的任务。
Recent research indicates a high recall in Google Scholar searches for systematic reviews. These reports raised high expectations of Google Scholar as a unified and easy to use search interface. However, studies on the coverage of Google Scholar rarely used the search interface in a realistic approach but instead merely checked for the existence of gold standard references. In addition, the severe limitations of the Google Search interface must be taken into consideration when comparing with professional literature retrieval tools. The objectives of this work are to measure the relative recall and precision of searches with Google Scholar under conditions which are derived from structured search procedures conventional in scientific literature retrieval; and to provide an overview of current advantages and disadvantages of the Google Scholar search interface in scientific literature retrieval. General and MEDLINE-specific search strategies were retrieved from 14 Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane systematic review search strategies were translated to Google Scholar search expression as good as possible under consideration of the original search semantics. The references of the included studies from the Cochrane reviews were checked for their inclusion in the result sets of the Google Scholar searches. Relative recall and precision were calculated. We investigated Cochrane reviews with a number of included references between 11 and 70 with a total of 396 references. The Google Scholar searches resulted in sets between 4,320 and 67,800 and a total of 291,190 hits. The relative recall of the Google Scholar searches had a minimum of 76.2% and a maximum of 100% (7 searches). The precision of the Google Scholar searches had a minimum of 0.05% and a maximum of 0.92%. The overall relative recall for all searches was 92.9%, the overall precision was 0.13%. The reported relative recall must be interpreted with care. It is a quality indicator of Google Scholar confined to an experimental setting which is unavailable in systematic retrieval due to the severe limitations of the Google Scholar search interface. Currently, Google Scholar does not provide necessary elements for systematic scientific literature retrieval such as tools for incremental query optimization, export of a large number of references, a visual search builder or a history function. Google Scholar is not ready as a professional searching tool for tasks where structured retrieval methodology is necessary.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Booth, Andrew
通讯作者：
Booth, Andrew
影响因子：
4.8
作者：
Falagas, Matthew E.;Pitsouni, Eleni I.;Pappas, Georgios
通讯作者：
Pappas, Georgios
DOI：
10.1002/asi.21372
发表时间：
2010-10-01
影响因子：
--
作者：
Garcia-Perez, Miguel A.
通讯作者：
Garcia-Perez, Miguel A.
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
Haig, A;Dozier, M
通讯作者：
Dozier, M
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
Kulkarni, Abhaya V.;Aziz, Brittany;Busse, Jason W.
通讯作者：
Busse, Jason W.