Skip to main content Accessibility help

The Benefits and Pitfalls of Google Scholar

  • Francesca R. Jensenius (a1), Mala Htun (a2), David J. Samuels (a3), David A. Singer (a4), Adria Lawrence (a5) and Michael Chwe (a6)...


Google Scholar (GS) is an important tool that faculty, administrators, and external reviewers use to evaluate the scholarly impact of candidates for jobs, tenure, and promotion. This article highlights both the benefits of GS—including the reliability and consistency of its citation counts and its platform for disseminating scholarship and facilitating networking—and its pitfalls. GS has biases because citation is a social and political process that disadvantages certain groups, including women, younger scholars, scholars in smaller research communities, and scholars opting for risky and innovative work. GS counts also reflect practices of strategic citation that exacerbate existing hierarchies and inequalities. As a result, it is imperative that political scientists incorporate other data sources, especially independent scholarly judgment, when making decisions that are crucial for careers. External reviewers have a unique obligation to offer a reasoned, rigorous, and qualitative assessment of a scholar’s contributions and therefore should not use GS.



Hide All

The † symbol indicates that the authors’ names are in certified random order, as described in Ray and Robson (2018).



Hide All
Aizenman, Joshua, and Kletzer, Kenneth. 2011. “The Life Cycle of Scholars and Papers in Economics—the ‘Citation Death Tax.’” Applied Economics 43 (27): 4135–48.
Chwe, Michael Suk-Young. 2016. “Stereotypes Are More Powerful When People Like to Agree with Each Other.” University of California, Los Angeles: Working paper. Last modified September 30. PDF file.
Colgan, Jeff. 2016. “Where Is International Relations Going? Evidence from Graduate Training.” International Studies Quarterly 60 (3): 486–98.
Colgan, Jeff. 2017. “Gender Bias in International Relations Graduate Education? New Evidence from Syllabi.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50 (2): 456–60.
Dion, Michelle, Sumner, Jane Lawrence, and Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin. Forthcoming. “Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields.” Political Analysis.
Ginther, Donna K., Schaffer, Walter T., Schnell, Joshua, Masimore, Beth, Liu, Faye, Haak, Laurel L., and Kington, Raynard. 2011. “Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards.” Science 333 (6045): 1015–19.
Hendrix, Cullen. 2015. “Google Scholar Metrics and Scholarly Productivity in International Relations.” Duck of Minerva, August 6. Available at
Hendrix, Cullen. 2016. “To Be or Not to Be, ‘Tis in Question.” In “Scholarly Influence and the Shaping of International Relations Debates.” International Studies Quarterly Symposium, March 31.
Jacsó, Peter. 2005. “Google Scholar: The Pros and the Cons.” Online Information Review 29 (2): 208–14.
Kalyvas, Stathis N. 1999. “Wanton and Senseless? The Logic of Massacres in Algeria.” Rationality and Society 11 (3): 243–85.
Kalyvas, Stathis N. 2006. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Maliniak, Daniel, Powers, Ryan, and Walter, Barbara F.. 2013. “The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations.” International Organization 67 (4): 889922.
Milkman, Katherine L., Akinola, Modupe, and Chugh, Dolly. 2012. “Temporal Distance and Discrimination: An Audit Study in Academia.” Psychological Science 23 (7): 710–17.
Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., Dovidio, John F., Brescoll, Victoria L., Graham, Mark J., and Handelsman, Jo. 2012. “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (41): 16474–9.
Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., and Rudman, Laurie A.. 2010. “Disruptions in Women’s Self-Promotion: The Backlash Avoidance Mode.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 34 (2): 186202.
Nexon, Daniel (ed.). 2016. “Scholarly Influence and the Shaping of International Relations Debates.” International Studies Quarterly Symposium, March 3. Available at
Nexon, Daniel, and Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2015. “Academia Isn’t Baseball.” Duck of Minerva, August 10. Available at
Ray, Debraj, and Robson, Arthur. 2018. “Certified Random: A New Order for Coauthorship.” American Economic Review 108 (2): 489520.
Reiter, Dan. 2016. “Citation Count Data and Faculty Promotion.” Duck of Minerva, February 18. Available at
Samuels, David. 2011 “The Modal Number of Citations to Political Science Articles Is Greater Than Zero: Accounting for Citations in Articles and Books.” PS: Political Science & Politics 44 (4): 783–92.
Samuels, David. 2013. “Book Citations Count.” PS: Political Science & Politics 46 (4): 785–90.
Stephan, Paula, Veugelers, Reinhilde, and Wang, Jian. 2017. “Reviewers Are Blinkered by Bibliometrics.” Nature 544 (7651): 411–12.
Teele, Dawn Langan, and Thelen, Kathleen. 2017. “Gender in the Journals: Publication Patterns in Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50 (2): 433–47.
Wang, Dashun, Song, Chaoming, and Barabasi, Albert-Laszlo. 2013. “Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact.” Science 342 (6154): 127131.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

The Benefits and Pitfalls of Google Scholar

  • Francesca R. Jensenius (a1), Mala Htun (a2), David J. Samuels (a3), David A. Singer (a4), Adria Lawrence (a5) and Michael Chwe (a6)...


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.