Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T18:05:55.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Benefits and Pitfalls of Google Scholar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2018

Francesca R. Jensenius ,
Mala Htun ,
David J. Samuels ,
David A. Singer ,
Adria Lawrence  and
Michael Chwe
Francesca R. Jensenius
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
Mala Htun
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
David J. Samuels
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
David A. Singer
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Adria Lawrence
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University
Michael Chwe
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Type
Articles
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , October 2018 , pp. 820 - 824
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

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

References

REFERENCES

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Colgan, Jeff. 2016. “Where Is International Relations Going? Evidence from Graduate Training.” International Studies Quarterly 60 (3): 486–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colgan, Jeff. 2017. “Gender Bias in International Relations Graduate Education? New Evidence from Syllabi.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50 (2): 456–60.Google Scholar
Dion, Michelle, Sumner, Jane Lawrence, and Mitchell, Sara McLaughlin. Forthcoming. “Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields.” Political Analysis.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrix, Cullen. 2015. “Google Scholar Metrics and Scholarly Productivity in International Relations.” Duck of Minerva, August 6. Available at http://duckofminerva.com/2015/08/google-scholar-metrics-and-scholarly-productivity-in-international-relations.html.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Jacsó, Peter. 2005. “Google Scholar: The Pros and the Cons.” Online Information Review 29 (2): 208–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyvas, Stathis N. 1999. “Wanton and Senseless? The Logic of Massacres in Algeria.” Rationality and Society 11 (3): 243–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyvas, Stathis N. 2006. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maliniak, Daniel, Powers, Ryan, and Walter, Barbara F.. 2013. “The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations.” International Organization 67 (4): 889–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milkman, Katherine L., Akinola, Modupe, and Chugh, Dolly. 2012. “Temporal Distance and Discrimination: An Audit Study in Academia.” Psychological Science 23 (7): 710–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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): 186–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nexon, Daniel (ed.). 2016. “Scholarly Influence and the Shaping of International Relations Debates.” International Studies Quarterly Symposium, March 3. Available at www.isanet.org/Publications/ISQ/Posts/ID/5107/Scholarly-Influence-and-the-Shaping-of-International-Relations-Debates.Google Scholar
Nexon, Daniel, and Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2015. “Academia Isn’t Baseball.” Duck of Minerva, August 10. Available at http://duckofminerva.com/2015/08/academia-isnt-baseball.html.Google Scholar
Ray, Debraj, and Robson, Arthur. 2018. “Certified Random: A New Order for Coauthorship.” American Economic Review 108 (2): 489–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter, Dan. 2016. “Citation Count Data and Faculty Promotion.” Duck of Minerva, February 18. Available at http://duckofminerva.com/2016/02/citation-count-data-and-faculty-promotion.html.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Samuels, David. 2013. “Book Citations Count.” PS: Political Science & Politics 46 (4): 785–90.Google Scholar
Stephan, Paula, Veugelers, Reinhilde, and Wang, Jian. 2017. “Reviewers Are Blinkered by Bibliometrics.” Nature 544 (7651): 411–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teele, Dawn Langan, and Thelen, Kathleen. 2017. “Gender in the Journals: Publication Patterns in Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50 (2): 433–47.Google Scholar
Wang, Dashun, Song, Chaoming, and Barabasi, Albert-Laszlo. 2013. “Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact.” Science 342 (6154): 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar