thesis paper google scholar

Thesis and Dissertation Guide

• Starting your Dissertation/Thesis
• Dissertation/Thesis Resources
• Books That May Help
• Literature Reviews
• Annotated Bibliography
• We Don't Have It? / Interlibrary Loan
• Online Learning Study Tips
• Search Strategy
• Advanced Search Techniques
• Kemp Library Video Tutorials
• Find Articles / Journals / Databases
• What are...
• Database Video Tutorials
• Peer Reviewed
• How to confirm and cite peer review
• Primary/Secondary Sources
• Other Types of Sources (i.e. Newspapers)
• Legal Research Resources
• Evidence Based Practice/Appraisal Resources

Google Scholar

• Website Evaluation
• Internet Searching
• Apps You Didn't Know You Needed
• Who is citing me?
• Questions After Hours
• ESU Thesis Submission
• ESU Dissertation Submission
• How to Integrate
• How to Use It

What is Google Scholar and Why Should You Care?

Google Scholar is a special division of Google that searches for academic content. It is not as robust as Google, and as such it can be harder to search. However, if you are looking for a specific article it is a fantastic resource for finding out if you can access it through your library or if it's available for free.

Below are a few videos on how to use Google Scholar (you can skip the intros if you want) that will show you tips and tricks on how to best use Google Scholar.

Did you know that you can use Google Scholar in addition to Primo to help search Kemp library materials? You just have to add us to your Google Scholar and our results will show up in your searches showing you what you have access to as an ESU community member!

• Go to  Google Scholar 
• Make sure you're logged into your Google Account -  you'll see your initials or your icon in the top right hand corner of the screen if you're logged in. 
• Click on  Settings  (either from the top of the Scholar home page, or from the drop-down on the right hand side of the results page).

Choose  Library Links .

Type ‘East Stroudsburg University’ into the search box.

Click the boxes next to “ESU” and "Kemp Library"

Click  Save .

If you have other institutions you're affilitated with, or ResearchGate, you can add them too!

Getting to Google Scholar Settings:

The Library Link Screen: Search, Select and Save!

What your search results will look like: 

 Add / Reorder  

Databases have more sophisticated search features than Google Scholar , but if you have a one or two word topic Google Scholar can be useful.  You can also try using the Advanced Search in Google Scholar (see the first video below). 

However, if you're having trouble finding something specific, i.e. a specific article, try Google Scholar. For example you want " Game of Thrones and Graffiti" and you don't see it in a database, search the title of the article in Google Scholar (here you'd search "Game of Thrones and Graffiti"). You may find it freely available OR discover it is available through the library, but in a database you didn't look at. 

If we don't have it and you can't access it on Google Scholar, you can always request it via interlibrary loan .

"If Google Scholar isn’t turning up what you need, try an open Google search with the article title in quotes, and type the added filter “filetype:pdf”. This scours the open web for papers hosted somewhere, by someone, in PDF format. Google Books provides limited preview access to many copyrighted books. Other alternate services include  SemanticScholar ,  Microsoft Academic ,  Dimensions , or  GetTheResearch . Here too there are subject-specific portals like  EconBiz  or the  Virtual Health Library , some of which offer multilingual search options." -  Paragraph taken from A Wikipedia Librarian. 

The other services like Microsoft Academic mentioned above are also useful when looking for freely available journal article and research! Don't forget to cite everything you use in your paper/project/presentation/etc. 

Google Scholar Videos

• << Previous: Evidence Based Practice/Appraisal Resources
• Next: Website Evaluation >>
• Last Updated: Apr 29, 2024 12:07 PM
• URL: https://esu.libguides.com/thesis

Thomas Vanhoutte

Personal website and blog

Submit academic research paper to Google Scholar

You have worked many months to complete your thesis or academic paper and you have relied on existing knowledge to finalize your research. Now you want to make your work available to the public. Here is how to properly include your academic research (journal article, thesis, book, ) in the Google Scholar search engine.

Create your Google Scholar profile

From this page, you can create your Google Scholar profile page. Include as much information as possible, such as a profile picture, your website, affiliation and areas of interest. I would also recommend you to make your profile public.

Once your profile looks good, we can move on to actually adding your academic writings. From here on, you have two options:

• You have only one or a few documents you want to submit, go for option 1
• You have many articles you want to add and are planning on writing even more in the future, go for option 2

Option 1 – Adding one by one

If you only want to include one document (let’s say, your master’s thesis), you can do so manually. Here are the steps:

• Go to this page to start adding a document manually.
• Choose the type of document (journal, conference, chapter, book, thesis, patent, court case or other).
• Fill in all the details about your article (title, author(s), publication date(s), volume, publisher, institution).

Click save and if you filled in everything correctly, you will see the message ‘Added article to your profile’. Congratulations!

Option 2 – Submit a website with all your work

In case you have an academic career and you have a list of work on your (academic or personal) website, option 2 is more suitable for you.

Google has guidelines to help you index your website that contains your academic work. Here are the steps you should follow to successfully include all of your work at once:

• Go to this page  and pick the type of website you are submitting. In my case, I choose ‘Personal publications’.
• Read and check the check-boxes that apply to you, such as ‘My inclusion request is for my personal publications’.
• Fill in the requested details, whereby the your webpage with academic articles should be filled in by ‘List of publications page’.
• Lastly, you are asked to include one or more article examples. So, paste the direct link to on or more of your PDFs there.

click submit and you are greeted with this message

Thanks for submitting your website to Google Scholar. Our crawl team is working hard to add new content as quickly as possible, and we appreciate your assistance. Please keep in mind that bibliographic data is extracted from your pages by automatic software. If you aren’t satisfied with the accuracy of your listings, please refer to our technical guidelines at http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html for ways to provide more accurate bibliographic data. An email detailing your submission has been sent to [email protected] . If your content meets our guidelines, you can generally expect to find it included within the Google Scholar results within 4-6 weeks.

Be patient, because as the message says, it can take up to a month or more before your articles are indexed. You will also receive an e-mail from  [email protected] with the data you just submitted.

Follow your own profile

Here is a great tip: follow your own Google Scholar profile!

Go to your own profile and at the top right, choose ‘follow’. Enter your e-mail and create the alert. If Google adds a new article to your profile, or a new citation, you will receive an e-mail alert.

This is an excellent way to receive a heads up if another researcher or student has cited your work in their academic writings. Maybe you can even reach out to the author(s) and talk about their research; a great way to expand your network.

Join the conversation

17 Comments

What are good open alternatives or extensions for Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search?

Mate is it equivalent to journal publishings.

Thanks a lot Mr. Thomas. I am much benefited by your informative article. The way and simplicity gave me enourament to read all and actually helped me to solve my problem. God bless you.

I like to add my journal in indexing of google scholar

Thanks Thomas for the link to “Submit a website with all your work”, that was a great tip.

I am genuinely happy to read this webpage posts which carries lots of valuable information, thanks for providing such statistics.

RESPECTED SIR, HOW CAN I UPLOAD MY ARTICLE WHICH IS NOT PUBLISHED ANYWHERE TO GOOGLE SCHOLAR, AS I AM A PHD SCHOLAR, THERE IS NO PROVISION TO UPLOAD AND SAVE OPTION IN MY SCHOLAR ACCOUNT. I JUST OPENED AN ACCOUNT SIR. PLS GUIDE ME IN THIS REGARD. THANK YOU SIR

how to add pdf file to google scholars?

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Name Course Professor Institution City and State location The Date  

TABLE OF CONTENT 1. Introduction…………………………………………………..4 1.1 Background Information………………………………….4 1.2 Definition of Corporate Governance……………………4 1.3 Importance of Corporate Governance…………………..4 1.4 Corporate Governance Theories………………………….5 1.5 Corporate Governance Codes……………………………5 2. Corporate Governance Mechanism………………………….6 2.1 Corporate boards………………………………………….7 2.1.1 Corporate board Structure……………………………7 2.1.2 Role of corporate board……………………………..8 2.2 Institutional Investors……………………………………9 2.2.1 Role of Institutional Investors ……………………..9 2.3 Other Corporate Governance Mechanisms……………10 3. Case Studies…………………………………………………10 3.1 Enron…………………………………………………….10 3.1.1 Background………………………………………..10 3.1.2 Enron’s Failure of Corporate Governance………..11 3.2 Reckitt Benckiser………………………………………12 3.2.1 Background………………………………………..12 3.2.2 Failure of Corporate Governance…………………12 3.3 Satyam………………………………………………….13 3.3.1 Background………………………………………..13 3.3.2 Failure of Corporate Governance ………………..13 3.4 WorldCom……………………………………………..14 3.4.1 Background……………………………………….14 3.4.2 Failure of Corporate Governance…………………14

4 Recommendations…………………………………………15 5 Conclusion…………………………………………………17 6 References…………………………………………………18   Introduction 1.1 Background Many scholars, economists, and other professions consider 2007- 2009 global financial crisis as the worst financial crisis ever since the great depression of 1930. The period characterized by the collapse of many financial institutions, massive bailouts, the economic downturn and finally the great recession was primarily attributed to the failure of corporate governance. As much as this was a low point in corporate governance, it also showed its importance not only to individual firms but to the world economy as a whole (Tricker & Tricker 2015). Never before has the notion that corporate boards and institutional investors are the most important corporate governance mechanisms in the firms with important implications for the sustainable long-term success of the firm been so vividly seen. From time immemorial as humans, we have always learned from our mistakes and the 2007-2009 was an eye opener especially to corporate governance. Before I can explain further on the notion, it is important to learn the basic aspects of corporate governance. 1.2 Definition of Corporate Governance Corporate governance in simple terms refers to the set of rules, processes, and practice through which a company is controlled and directed with (Solomon 2007). It involves balancing the interests of the organization with the interests of other parties such as the government, investors, lenders, suppliers, the community etc. 1.3 Importance of Corporate Governance When executed properly, corporate governance can help a company avoid certain risks such as lawsuits, fraud, and misappropriation of funds. In addition to that, good corporate governance helps in boosting the organization’s brand and reputation to the media, investors, suppliers, customers and the society as the whole. Furthermore, cooperate governance protects the financial interests of the individuals involved with the company such as the shareholders and the employees as explained by (Vitez, 2017).

1.4 Theories of Corporate Governance Corporate governance can be defined in many ways but when it comes to analyzing it, we do it through a framework of different theories. One of those theories is the agency theory which looks at the shareholders as the principals and the executives that have been hired to run the business as their agents. Another theory is the stewardship theory which looks at the executive as the stewards of the shareholders with both parties sharing the same goals. In addition to that, we have the resource dependent theory which considers the board as to be in existence so as to provide resources to the management with the aim of achieving the overall objectives of the business. Stakeholder theory comes from the assumptions that it is not just the shareholders who have an interest in the company but other parties too such as suppliers, the government, creditors among others (Farrar 2008). This means that this parties too can be affected by the success or failure of the business. Other theories of cooperate governance include transaction cost theory, political theory, and ethical related theories. 1.5 Corporate Governance Codes Introduction The code of governance over the years have originated for various reasons or in response to various circumstances. The first major release was in 1992 by Sir Adrian Cadbury popularly referred to ‘Cadbury Code’ titled “the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance”. Following serious revisions over the years, the code is nowadays administered by the Financial Reporting Council. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developed the first internationally influential codes back in 1999 following a business advisory committee that was led by Irra Milstein. Boards that govern companies are influenced by several documents which include but not limited to articles of incorporation, by-laws, corporate governance guidelines, committee charters, and codes of conduct. When it comes to the United States, various federals laws such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Act, federal laws as well as federal security laws in addition to regulations, rules, and guidance from SEC are used. These documents are meant to be used for the purpose of best practices and flexible working standards to safeguard the various parties that have an interest in the organization. In short, they basically outline the interaction between the board and management outlining the structure and the behavior of the board. The codes are normally contributed to by various individuals including investors, accounting firms, regulators, banks, corporate governance interest organizations, academics, and stock exchanges, among others.

Corporate Governance Mechanism Policies, control, and guidelines are vital for an adequate corporate governance mechanisms. An effective corporate governance mechanism will consist of a number of various mechanisms. The first level consists of internal mechanisms which monitor the business from within and take corrective measures when the business stray away from its set objectives. They include reporting lines that are clearly defined, systems that measure performance and systems for the smooth operation of the business. The next level is the external mechanisms which are controlled by those outside the business and serve the objectives of outsiders such as the regulators, government, financial institutions, and trade unions among others. The objectives of the external mechanism include proper debt management and legal compliance by the company in question. The last level consists of an audit of the entity’s financial statements by an independent auditor who generally works to serve both the internal and external parties that are involved with an organization to ensure that their interests are guided and that the management is doing everything properly. They also act as a second opinion to back up what the management is saying. 2.1 Corporate Boards The board generally consist of groups of individuals elected or nominated by shareholders in the annual general meeting. The board of directors normally act as a bridge between the company and the shareholders -it decides as a fiduciary with the aim of protecting the latter’s interests. This is the norm with a Public company even though nowadays most non-profit making organizations and private companies also have a board. Their main mandate is to make policies for corporate management and also to make decisions on major issues that affect the company. 2.1.1 Corporate Board Structure The structure of the board of directors is mainly guided by the company’s bylaws which sets out the structure, number of members, how often they meet etc. The most important element is that it should be able to balance both the interests of the management and Shareholders. The duties are regulated by the statutory laws, federal statutory laws, listing standards, common law and shareholder activism and litigation. The membership of the board normally constitutes independent directors, senior company executives, non-independent directors such as former senior executives of the company among others. Nasdaq rules require the majority of the board members to be independent and in they constitute up to 75% or more of the boards in 93 of the top 100 US companies. Most boards consist of 8 to 15 members. There are no age and nationality restrictions although in recent years gender balance has been emphasized. 2.1.2 Roles of the Corporate Boards The board’s primary role as discussed earlier is the fiduciary duty to safeguard the finances and the legal requirements of the entity. They do this by ensuring that the entity in questions does all that is required of it by the law, and the funds are properly used. Another role of the board of directors is setting up the mission and vision of the organization. In addition to that, they ensure that the management adheres and work towards achieving them. Over sighting the activities of members of the organization such as executives is another role of the corporate board. The board ensures that the management adheres to rules and regulations and do their work as prescribed. Other roles of the board of directors come up in the annual meetings where-by, they announce the annual dividends, oversee the appointment of key executives and amend the by-laws where it is necessary (Dimopoulos & Wagner, 2016). Other roles of the corporate board include setting up the strategy for the company for long-term survival, short-term gains and future exploration of opportunities that are likely to arise. This might also include setting up the structure of the company to ensure efficiency. The board, however, does not take part in the day to day running of the organization and thus serve another role of delegating the duties to the management. The board should also monitor, control functions and set up compensation plans for the executives. Last but definitely not least, the board helps in acquiring resources for the organization while ensuring continuity. With great power comes great responsibilities. The board must always use their powers for the right reason and do what is required of them by the shareholders of the company. The board must always carry out whatever they do in the full interest of the company, and in case there is a conflict of interest then the interests of the company should always come first. They must also carry out their task with due care minding the interests of both the shareholders and that of the employees. Other responsibilities of the board include acting as the court of appeal in case there are disputes, accessing the performance of the firm and enhancing the organization’s overall public image and brand name. 2.2 Institutional Investors An institutional investor is a person, persons or organization that pools money or provides funds to purchase securities, other investment assets, property or originate loans. They include financial institutions such as banks, Insurance companies, pension and hedge firms, investment advisors, commercial trusts and mutual funds. For a firm to grow, it requires resources inform of money which is provided by these institutional investors who get profits and interests as compensation for their troubles in taking the risk. The returns should exceed the fees and expenses of the investments and is compared against treasury bills which are considered to be risk-free. 2.2.1 Roles and Responsibilities of Institutional investors The best thing about institutional investors is the fact that they have expertise and knowledge to monitor the health and progress of the business. With this knowledge, they can provide the best advice the organization and also control the tendency of the management to put their interests first as opposed to the interests of the company. This active monitoring helps reduce misappropriation of funds and other forms of fraud (Gillan & Starks 2002, pp. 275-305) The institutional investors can act as a source of stability in hard times as was the case in the coal crisis in India recently. By offering additional funds, the institutional investors increase their stake and say in the company thus can push for better corporate governance. Another aspect related to this is the fact the institutional investors have a louder voice compared to minority investors. Most of the time when minority shareholders raise their concerns on corporate governance, they will rarely get addressed or at times get thwarted by the minorities which are not the case with institutional investors. 2.3 Other Corporate Governance Mechanism Other parties that are involved in corporate governance include the shareholders themselves who have the biggest interests as the main contributors of capital, the employees who get their incomes and job security from the good governance of the company, the government which gets taxes from the organization and the society as a whole which benefits from job creation, income distribution, corporate social responsibility activities of the firm among other benefits. Case Studies 3.1 Enron 3.1.1 Background The story of Enron was not only the largest bankruptcy case at the time but also the biggest audit failure. This was cited by many as the biggest corporate governance failure especially on the part of corporate boards and institutional investors. Enron was founded in 1985 by Kenneth Lay who also triples up as the chairman and chief executive officer. This was after merging Houston Natural gas and Intermonth. Other key people involved with Enron included: Jeffrey Skiing who was the C.O.O, Andrew Fastow who was the CFO and Rebecca Mark-Jusbasche who was the once a vice chairman. From 1995 to 2000 Enron was in fact named America most innovative company by Fortune. In the mid-2000s at its peak, the shares of Enron were trading at $90.75 per share. By the end of November 2001, they were trading at less than $1 per share. This was when the shareholders filed a $40 billion lawsuit. Enron filed for bankruptcy on December second, 2001 with assets worth $63.4 billion making it the biggest bankruptcy scandal ever in American history at the time. At this stage, the shares were going at $0.26 per share. 3.1.2 Failure of Corporate Governance in Enron Lack of due care and skill from the board was one of the reasons why Enron failed. As submitted by S.Watkins, Kenneth Lay who was Enron’s chair, could not get what was being said to him in regards to the company having questionable accounting practices. This also showed lack of proper communication between the board and the executives. This was further elaborated by Jeffrey McMahon, the new Enron’s president who said it was virtually impossible to challenge the authorities at Enron. A culture of intimidation had also developed at the company with the likes of Ms. Watkins fearing to lose their jobs. The board literally failed in its role of directing. This showed some sort of conflict of interests where they were more than happy to receive high compensations without asking serious questions which would have led to a decrease in their personal bonuses. The management who carried out the day to running of the Enron misrepresented information by allocating Enron’s debts to its dubious partners. This also showed the lack of proper internal controls at Enron (Carberry & Zajac 2017, p.15134). The corporate investors also failed to properly supervise the company and advice accordingly. For example, according to an economist at Enron, it was important it was all mind games as it was important for the employees, investors, and analysts to believe that the stock will bounce back. Other corporate investors such as the two trustees of Enron’s 401(k) plan failed in their duties as they did not warn the plan participants despite a memo detailing the accounting malpractices. The institutional investors also had all the knowledge and expertise but failed to utilize them- they just sat back and believed whatever they were told. 3.2 Reckitt Benckiser 3.2.1 Background Reckitt Benckiser is a British multinational that produces consumer goods to do with hygien, health, and home products. The name comes from the merging of a United Kingdom company Reckitt & Coleman and Benckiser NV that was based in the Netherlands back in 1999. The most well-known products worldwide include Dettol and Strepsil. Reckitt Benckiser acquired Korean Oxy brand in 2001 which had been using polyhexamethathylene guanidine (PHMG) in a product since 1996. In 2011, PHMG was banned by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and prevention after a published report showed a link to lung damage and report. Several reports also came out supporting the Korean report, and at the height of this in 2016 a coalition of consumer groups came out for the total boycott of Reckitt Benckiser products after it had been linked to more than 500 deaths from a BBC report. 3.2.1 Failure of Corporate Governance Mechanism in Reckitt Benckiser In the case of corporate governance, the management and directors fail as a whole in doing their duty of due care and skill when acquiring the Korean Oxy brand. They had a duty to investigate and know what is in the product. They put the company’s financial interests before the safety of the consumers. In addition to that, several attempts were made by the board and management to suppress investigations instead of taking corrective measures. Even though this was mostly a failure by the management and board, institutional investors also had the power to ask questions. Despite the various reports, they were silent till there was outrage in the mass media. 3.3 Satyam 3.3.1 Background Satyam was India’s fourth largest computer service company in India which has a population of over 1 billion. It was even listed on New York Stock exchange in 2001 with revenues exceeding $1 billion. The founder, M. Raju Ramalinga who was also the chair was a highly regarded person in the business often gracing all the major corporate events. In 2008 Satyam won the coveted prize of the Golden Peacock Award for compliance issues and Risk Management in corporate governance. In 2009, M. Raju confessed that the company’s accounts had been falsified by a massive $1.47 billion (Bhasin 2005). In the same year, Satyam stock was banned from trading on the New York Stock Exchange, and the Golden Peacock Award stripped off. Mr. Raju was later convicted together with other senior members. 3.3.2 Failure of Corporate Governance Mechanisms The board at Satyam failed in their primary duty of due care and monitoring the activity of the business as they did not notice the discrepancy. This was so evident that the first order was to appoint a temporary board. The board also put their interests first at the expense of the company for financial gains as confessed by their chairman. Despite the amount that falsified being that large, the auditors who were Price Water House Coopers failed in their auditing duties as they did not report anything amiss despite having all the expertise and experience. They were even fined $6 million by the US stock exchange for not following the code of conduct and auditing standards in when offering their services to Satyam. Institutional investors also failed to raise questions or properly examine the financial statements. Furthermore, with their expertise, they should have pushed for compliance with the corporate code of governance. 3.4 Worldcom 3.4.1 Background Before filing for bankruptcy protection in 2002, WorldCom was the second largest long distance phone company in the United States. With assets totaling over $104 billion, $30 billion in revenues and over 60,000 employees WorldCom filed for bankruptcy protection on July 1, 2002. The company later wrote down more than 75% of the total assets with over 17,000 of the workers losing their jobs. Over the period between 1999-2002, WorldCom had deliberately overstated their income before tax by over $7 billion which was the main reason behind the falling from grace to grass. It is currently known as Verizon business or Verizon enterprise solution after being acquired by Verizon Communications and is slowly rebuilding and being integrated into the parent company. 3.4.2 Failure of corporate Mechanism in WorldCom The biggest failure of WorldCom was the fact that the board had failed in its structuring role. Over the years, it had acquired a lot of companies with even one accountant confessing that they would get calls from people they did not even know existed. The departments were also not even properly structured for efficient working and were very decentralized. For example, the finance department was in Mississippi; the network operations were in Texas, the human resource in Florida and the legal department in Washington DC. This provided a challenge of communication as each department developed their ways of doing things. Apart from that, the difference in management style and the culture that was developed of not questioning seniors was a discouragement for employees who wanted to correct any issues that arose. In fact, there was a deliberate attempt by the management to hide vital financial issues as explained by Buddy Yates, the director of general accounting who was told he would be thrown outside the window in case he had shown the numbers to the auditors by Gene Morse, a senior manager. The employees also put their self-interests above the interest of the company as loyal employees were often compensated above the company’s approved salaries and bonus packages by Ebbers and Sullivan. The biggest failure was the board however as they failed terribly in all their roles and responsibilities including due care, supervision, bridging the gap between management and shareholder among others. In the case of institutional investors, they also failed terribly. No one raised a question on the structure of the firm or why the firm was highly decentralized. The increase in the salaries and compensation for the ‘loyal’ employees in the finance and accounting department should also have raised questions. Institutional investors should have also used their expertise to confirm the information that was being provided to them. Recommendations on Improving the Quality Of Corporate Governance Corporates Boards Should Meet Regularly: The corporates boards do not take part in the day to day running of the business, but they have a supervisory role. To carry out the tasks effectively, they need to meet more often (Christensen et al 2015, pp.133-164) Division of Responsibilities: The duties and responsibilities of a firm should be properly defined and allocated within an organization. This will help in reducing conflicts and also knowing who is liable and for what. This will also help enhance effective communication within an organization. Stronger Internal Controls: Controls in an organization should start from within for effective corporate governance. The controls include the supervision of seniors, physical controls, controls among others. Transparency: Corporate governance is all about transparency. Transparency does not mean revealing the companies but being honest in its activities. In case there is a loss it should be stated and corrective measures to correct it taken, Proper succession planning: One of the best attributes is that its life is not limited to that of the owners or directors. A proper succession plan should, therefore, be set in place to ensure that the values of the company that encourages proper corporate governance are passed from one generation to the other within the company Proper training of directors: The directors of the company are the eyes of the society and shareholders in the business. They need to be properly trained to carry out their tasks effectively as is required of them. Another option is to select a board of directors that is highly qualified in the different fields that the business is engaged in. Independent members increase: Any organization that is interested in improving its corporate governance should try as much as possible to increase the list of independent parties in its running. The independent parties with no direct relation can view the business from a better neutral point (Klapper & Love 2002, pp.703-728) Conclusion It is crystal clear from the discussions above that the corporate governance mechanisms such as corporate boards and institutional boards are the backbone for the survival of any company. From the cases discussed above, we can see the consequences of bad corporate governance and the fact that it does not matter how big the company is. In addition to that, there is a failure the many bodies that are meant to supervise corporate governance. Corporate governance board needs to do more than just take the words of corporations. It is an understatement to say that corporate governance should be a priority, it should actually be a prerequisite (Lebedeva et al 2016). 

References Bhasin, M.L., 2015. Corporate accounting fraud: A case study of Satyam Computers Limited. Carberry, E. and Zajac, E., 2017, January. How US Corporations Changed Executive Compensation after Enron: Substance and Symbol. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2017, No. 1, p. 15134). Academy of Management Christensen, J., Kent, P., Routledge, J. and Stewart, J., 2015. Do corporate governance recommendations improve the performance and accountability of small listed companies?. Accounting & Finance, 55(1), pp.133-164. Dimopoulos, T. and Wagner, H.F., 2016. Corporate Governance and CEO Turnover Decisions. Farrar, J., 2008. Corporate governance: theories, principles and practice. Oxford University Press Gillan, S.L. and Starks, L.T., 2000. Corporate governance proposals and shareholder activism: The role of institutional investors. Journal of financial Economics, 57(2), pp.275-305. Ilya, P., 2015. inc. [Online] Available at: http://www.inc.com/ilya-pozin/14-highly-effective-ways-to-motivate-employees.html [Accessed 27 January 2018].

Klapper, L.F. and Love, I., 2004. Corporate governance, investor protection, and performance in emerging markets. Journal of corporate Finance, 10(5), pp.703-728. Lebedeva, T.E., Akhmetshin, E.M., Dzagoyeva, M.R., Kobersy, I.S. and Ikoev, S.K., 2016. Corporate governance issues and control in conditions of unstable capital risk. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 6(1S). Solomon, J., 2007. Corporate governance and accountability. John Wiley & Sons. Tricker, R.B. and Tricker, R.I., 2015. Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices. Oxford University Press, USA. Vitez, O., 2017. Bizfluent. [Online] Available at: https://bizfluent.com/facts-6884459-importance-corporate governance.html [Accessed 21 February 2018].

Hi, we have the scientific journal: https://journal.scsa.ge/

we are submitting it to google scholar manually already for one year, but it is not indexed still in scholar.

What can we do?

Hi, how to upload my thesis into google or share

hello, how to upload my thesis into google or share .

An impressive share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a friend who was doing a little research on this. And he actually bought me breakfast simply because I found it for him… lol. So let me reword this…. Thanks for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending time to discuss this subject here on your web site.

I am interested to publish my articles on Goodle scholar but I have know clear idea about the steps to follow. Please link me

Thanks, Thomas your article help me to explore google scholar differently thanks a lots.

Thanks, friend. I wanted to publish my marketing papers over there. Your article helped. Thanks again.

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leave a comment

Reference management. Clean and simple.

Google Scholar: the ultimate guide

What is Google Scholar?

Why is google scholar better than google for finding research papers, the google scholar search results page, the first two lines: core bibliographic information, quick full text-access options, "cited by" count and other useful links, tips for searching google scholar, 1. google scholar searches are not case sensitive, 2. use keywords instead of full sentences, 3. use quotes to search for an exact match, 3. add the year to the search phrase to get articles published in a particular year, 4. use the side bar controls to adjust your search result, 5. use boolean operator to better control your searches, google scholar advanced search interface, customizing search preferences and options, using the "my library" feature in google scholar, the scope and limitations of google scholar, alternatives to google scholar, country-specific google scholar sites, frequently asked questions about google scholar, related articles.

Google Scholar (GS) is a free academic search engine that can be thought of as the academic version of Google. Rather than searching all of the indexed information on the web, it searches repositories of:

• universities
• scholarly websites

This is generally a smaller subset of the pool that Google searches. It's all done automatically, but most of the search results tend to be reliable scholarly sources.

However, Google is typically less careful about what it includes in search results than more curated, subscription-based academic databases like Scopus and Web of Science . As a result, it is important to take some time to assess the credibility of the resources linked through Google Scholar.

➡️ Take a look at our guide on the best academic databases .

One advantage of using Google Scholar is that the interface is comforting and familiar to anyone who uses Google. This lowers the learning curve of finding scholarly information .

There are a number of useful differences from a regular Google search. Google Scholar allows you to:

• copy a formatted citation in different styles including MLA and APA
• export bibliographic data (BibTeX, RIS) to use with reference management software
• explore other works have cited the listed work
• easily find full text versions of the article

Although it is free to search in Google Scholar, most of the content is not freely available. Google does its best to find copies of restricted articles in public repositories. If you are at an academic or research institution, you can also set up a library connection that allows you to see items that are available through your institution.

The Google Scholar results page differs from the Google results page in a few key ways. The search result page is, however, different and it is worth being familiar with the different pieces of information that are shown. Let's have a look at the results for the search term "machine learning.”

• The first line of each result provides the title of the document (e.g. of an article, book, chapter, or report).
• The second line provides the bibliographic information about the document, in order: the author(s), the journal or book it appears in, the year of publication, and the publisher.

Clicking on the title link will bring you to the publisher’s page where you may be able to access more information about the document. This includes the abstract and options to download the PDF.

To the far right of the entry are more direct options for obtaining the full text of the document. In this example, Google has also located a publicly available PDF of the document hosted at umich.edu . Note, that it's not guaranteed that it is the version of the article that was finally published in the journal.

Below the text snippet/abstract you can find a number of useful links.

• Cited by : the cited by link will show other articles that have cited this resource. That is a super useful feature that can help you in many ways. First, it is a good way to track the more recent research that has referenced this article, and second the fact that other researches cited this document lends greater credibility to it. But be aware that there is a lag in publication type. Therefore, an article published in 2017 will not have an extensive number of cited by results. It takes a minimum of 6 months for most articles to get published, so even if an article was using the source, the more recent article has not been published yet.
• Versions : this link will display other versions of the article or other databases where the article may be found, some of which may offer free access to the article.
• Quotation mark icon : this will display a popup with commonly used citation formats such as MLA, APA, Chicago, Harvard, and Vancouver that may be copied and pasted. Note, however, that the Google Scholar citation data is sometimes incomplete and so it is often a good idea to check this data at the source. The "cite" popup also includes links for exporting the citation data as BibTeX or RIS files that any major reference manager can import.

Pro tip: Use a reference manager like Paperpile to keep track of all your sources. Paperpile integrates with Google Scholar and many popular academic research engines and databases, so you can save references and PDFs directly to your library using the Paperpile buttons and later cite them in thousands of citation styles:

Although Google Scholar limits each search to a maximum of 1,000 results , it's still too much to explore, and you need an effective way of locating the relevant articles. Here’s a list of pro tips that will help you save time and search more effectively.

You don’t need to worry about case sensitivity when you’re using Google scholar. In other words, a search for "Machine Learning" will produce the same results as a search for "machine learning.”

Let's say your research topic is about self driving cars. For a regular Google search we might enter something like " what is the current state of the technology used for self driving cars ". In Google Scholar, you will see less than ideal results for this query .

The trick is to build a list of keywords and perform searches for them like self-driving cars, autonomous vehicles, or driverless cars. Google Scholar will assist you on that: if you start typing in the search field you will see related queries suggested by Scholar!

If you put your search phrase into quotes you can search for exact matches of that phrase in the title and the body text of the document. Without quotes, Google Scholar will treat each word separately.

This means that if you search national parks , the words will not necessarily appear together. Grouped words and exact phrases should be enclosed in quotation marks.

A search using “self-driving cars 2015,” for example, will return articles or books published in 2015.

Using the options in the left hand panel you can further restrict the search results by limiting the years covered by the search, the inclusion or exclude of patents, and you can sort the results by relevance or by date.

Searches are not case sensitive, however, there are a number of Boolean operators you can use to control the search and these must be capitalized.

• AND requires both of the words or phrases on either side to be somewhere in the record.
• NOT can be placed in front of a word or phrases to exclude results which include them.
• OR will give equal weight to results which match just one of the words or phrases on either side.

➡️ Read more about how to efficiently search online databases for academic research .

In case you got overwhelmed by the above options, here’s some illustrative examples:

Tip: Use the advanced search features in Google Scholar to narrow down your search results.

You can gain even more fine-grained control over your search by using the advanced search feature. This feature is available by clicking on the hamburger menu in the upper left and selecting the "Advanced search" menu item.

Adjusting the Google Scholar settings is not necessary for getting good results, but offers some additional customization, including the ability to enable the above-mentioned library integrations.

The settings menu is found in the hamburger menu located in the top left of the Google Scholar page. The settings are divided into five sections:

• Collections to search: by default Google scholar searches articles and includes patents, but this default can be changed if you are not interested in patents or if you wish to search case law instead.
• Bibliographic manager: you can export relevant citation data via the “Bibliography manager” subsection.
• Languages: if you wish for results to return only articles written in a specific subset of languages, you can define that here.
• Library links: as noted, Google Scholar allows you to get the Full Text of articles through your institution’s subscriptions, where available. Search for, and add, your institution here to have the relevant link included in your search results.
• Button: the Scholar Button is a Chrome extension which adds a dropdown search box to your toolbar. This allows you to search Google Scholar from any website. Moreover, if you have any text selected on the page and then click the button it will display results from a search on those words when clicked.

When signed in, Google Scholar adds some simple tools for keeping track of and organizing the articles you find. These can be useful if you are not using a full academic reference manager.

All the search results include a “save” button at the end of the bottom row of links, clicking this will add it to your "My Library".

To help you provide some structure, you can create and apply labels to the items in your library. Appended labels will appear at the end of the article titles. For example, the following article has been assigned a “RNA” label:

Within your Google Scholar library, you can also edit the metadata associated with titles. This will often be necessary as Google Scholar citation data is often faulty.

There is no official statement about how big the Scholar search index is, but unofficial estimates are in the range of about 160 million , and it is supposed to continue to grow by several million each year.

Yet, Google Scholar does not return all resources that you may get in search at you local library catalog. For example, a library database could return podcasts, videos, articles, statistics, or special collections. For now, Google Scholar has only the following publication types:

• Journal articles : articles published in journals. It's a mixture of articles from peer reviewed journals, predatory journals and pre-print archives.
• Books : links to the Google limited version of the text, when possible.
• Book chapters : chapters within a book, sometimes they are also electronically available.
• Book reviews : reviews of books, but it is not always apparent that it is a review from the search result.
• Conference proceedings : papers written as part of a conference, typically used as part of presentation at the conference.
• Court opinions .
• Patents : Google Scholar only searches patents if the option is selected in the search settings described above.

The information in Google Scholar is not cataloged by professionals. The quality of the metadata will depend heavily on the source that Google Scholar is pulling the information from. This is a much different process to how information is collected and indexed in scholarly databases such as Scopus or Web of Science .

➡️ Visit our list of the best academic databases .

Google Scholar is by far the most frequently used academic search engine , but it is not the only one. Other academic search engines include:

• Science.gov
• Semantic Scholar
• scholar.google.fr : Sur les épaules d'un géant
• scholar.google.es (Google Académico): A hombros de gigantes
• scholar.google.pt (Google Académico): Sobre os ombros de gigantes
• scholar.google.de : Auf den Schultern von Riesen

➡️ Once you’ve found some research, it’s time to read it. Take a look at our guide on how to read a scientific paper .

No. Google Scholar is a bibliographic search engine rather than a bibliographic database. In order to qualify as a database Google Scholar would need to have stable identifiers for its records.

No. Google Scholar is an academic search engine, but the records found in Google Scholar are scholarly sources.

No. Google Scholar collects research papers from all over the web, including grey literature and non-peer reviewed papers and reports.

Google Scholar does not provide any full text content itself, but links to the full text article on the publisher page, which can either be open access or paywalled content. Google Scholar tries to provide links to free versions, when possible.

The easiest way to access Google scholar is by using The Google Scholar Button. This is a browser extension that allows you easily access Google Scholar from any web page. You can install it from the Chrome Webstore .

18 Google Scholar tips all students should know

Dec 13, 2022

[[read-time]] min read

Think of this guide as your personal research assistant.

“It’s hard to pick your favorite kid,” Anurag Acharya says when I ask him to talk about a favorite Google Scholar feature he’s worked on. “I work on product, engineering, operations, partnerships,” he says. He’s been doing it for 18 years, which as of this month, happens to be how long Google Scholar has been around.

Google Scholar is also one of Google’s longest-running services. The comprehensive database of research papers, legal cases and other scholarly publications was the fourth Search service Google launched, Anurag says. In honor of this very important tool’s 18th anniversary, I asked Anurag to share 18 things you can do in Google Scholar that you might have missed.

1. Copy article citations in the style of your choice.

With a simple click of the cite button (which sits below an article entry), Google Scholar will give you a ready-to-use citation for the article in five styles, including APA, MLA and Chicago. You can select and copy the one you prefer.

2. Dig deeper with related searches.

Google Scholar’s related searches can help you pinpoint your research; you’ll see them show up on a page in between article results. Anurag describes it like this: You start with a big topic — like “cancer” — and follow up with a related search like “lung cancer” or “colon cancer” to explore specific kinds of cancer.

Related searches can help you find what you’re looking for.

3. And don’t miss the related articles.

This is another great way to find more papers similar to one you found helpful — you can find this link right below an entry.

4. Read the papers you find.

Scholarly articles have long been available only by subscription. To keep you from having to log in every time you see a paper you’re interested in, Scholar works with libraries and publishers worldwide to integrate their subscriptions directly into its search results. Look for a link marked [PDF] or [HTML]. This also includes preprints and other free-to-read versions of papers.

5. Access Google Scholar tools from anywhere on the web with the Scholar Button browser extension.

The Scholar Button browser extension is sort of like a mini version of Scholar that can move around the web with you. If you’re searching for something, hitting the extension icon will show you studies about that topic, and if you’re reading a study, you can hit that same button to find a version you read, create a citation or to save it to your Scholar library.

Install the Scholar Button Chrome browser extension to access Google Scholar from anywhere on the web.

6. Learn more about authors through Scholar profiles.

There are many times when you’ll want to know more about the researchers behind the ideas you’re looking into. You can do this by clicking on an author’s name when it’s hyperlinked in a search result. You’ll find all of their work as well as co-authors, articles they’re cited in and so on. You can also follow authors from their Scholar profile to get email updates about their work, or about when and where their work is cited.

7. Easily find topic experts.

One last thing about author profiles: If there are topics listed below an author’s name on their profile, you can click on these areas of expertise and you’ll see a page of more authors who are researching and publishing on these topics, too.

8. Search for court opinions with the “Case law” button.

Scholar is the largest free database of U.S. court opinions. When you search for something using Google Scholar, you can select the “Case law” button below the search box to see legal cases your keywords are referenced in. You can read the opinions and a summary of what they established.

9. See how those court opinions have been cited.

If you want to better understand the impact of a particular piece of case law, you can select “How Cited,” which is below an entry, to see how and where the document has been cited. For example, here is the How Cited page for Marbury v. Madison , a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established that courts can strike down unconstitutional laws or statutes.

10. Understand how a legal opinion depends on another.

When you’re looking at how case laws are cited within Google Scholar, click on “Cited by” and check out the horizontal bars next to the different results. They indicate how relevant the cited opinion is in the court decision it’s cited within. You will see zero, one, two or three bars before each result. Those bars indicate the extent to which the new opinion depends on and refers to the cited case.

In the Cited by page for New York Times Company v. Sullivan, court cases with three bars next to their name heavily reference the original case. One bar indicates less reliance.

11. Sign up for Google Scholar alerts.

Want to stay up to date on a specific topic? Create an alert for a Google Scholar search for your topics and you’ll get email updates similar to Google Search alerts. Another way to keep up with research in your area is to follow new articles by leading researchers. Go to their profiles and click “Follow.” If you’re a junior grad student, you may consider following articles related to your advisor’s research topics, for instance.

12. Save interesting articles to your library.

It’s easy to go down fascinating rabbit hole after rabbit hole in Google Scholar. Don’t lose track of your research and use the save option that pops up under search results so articles will be in your library for later reading.

13. Keep your library organized with labels.

Labels aren’t only for Gmail! You can create labels within your Google Scholar library so you can keep your research organized. Click on “My library,” and then the “Manage labels…” option to create a new label.

14. If you’re a researcher, share your research with all your colleagues.

Many research funding agencies around the world now mandate that funded articles should become publicly free to read within a year of publication — or sooner. Scholar profiles list such articles to help researchers keep track of them and open up access to ones that are still locked down. That means you can immediately see what is currently available from researchers you’re interested in and how many of their papers will soon be publicly free to read.

15. Look through Scholar’s annual top publications and papers.

Every year, Google Scholar releases the top publications based on the most-cited papers. That list (available in 11 languages) will also take you to each publication’s top papers — this takes into account the “h index,” which measures how much impact an article has had. It’s an excellent place to start a research journey as well as get an idea about the ideas and discoveries researchers are currently focused on.

16. Get even more specific with Advanced Search.

Click on the hamburger icon on the upper left-hand corner and select Advanced Search to fine-tune your queries. For example, articles with exact words or a particular phrase in the title or articles from a particular journal and so on.

17. Find extra help on Google Scholar’s help page.

It might sound obvious, but there’s a wealth of useful information to be found here — like how often the database is updated, tips on formatting searches and how you can use your library subscriptions when you’re off-campus (looking at you, college students!). Oh, and you’ll even learn the origin of that quote on Google Scholar’s home page.

18. Keep up with Google Scholar news.

Don’t forget to check out the Google Scholar blog for updates on new features and tips for using this tool even better.

Related stories

Generative AI in Search: Let Google do the searching for you

A new Mother's Day gift experience on Google Search

Celebrate spring with floral illustrations on Google Books

Find more sustainable ways to get around, with new Maps and Search updates

Quiz: Do you know solar eclipse Search Trends?

4 ways to use Search to check facts, images and sources online

Let’s stay in touch. Get the latest news from Google in your inbox.

Google Scholar: Google Scholar

Using google scholar.

Google Scholar  [scholar.google.com] is different from Google. Google searches public web content - if your instructor says not to use Google, they probably mean they don't want you to use content from the public web. Google Scholar, however, searches journal and conference papers, theses and dissertations, academic books, pre-prints, abstracts, technical reports and other scholarly literature.

Is Google Scholar right for my research?

Google Scholar is useful for:

• locating more information on partial citations. For example, Google Scholar can often find an article with just the title, and will provide the full citation and access to full text options once you have set up Google Scholar.
• discovering keywords that define your topic.
• helping a beginning researcher identify journal titles and authors connected with subjects of interest.
• finding "gray literature" like conference proceedings. It includes many articles that wouldn't get included in other indexing services.
• highlighting highly cited works on the topic.

Google Scholar cannot:

• search with the accuracy of Library databases.
• sort/search by disciplinary field.
• browse by title.

Searching in Google Scholar is imprecise when compared with discipline-specific databases. If your research requires very comprehensive searching, or if you are not satisfied with Google Scholar's results, use individual research databases.

Research Databases

• Finding Full Text
• Using "Cited By"
• Search Limits & Advanced Search
• Other Useful Features

Google Scholar:  https://scholar.google.com/ 

On-Campus? Google Scholar will automatically display links for access to the full text of search results.

Off Campus? Set  Scholar Settings  (From scholar.google.com   , click on the Menu icon in the upper left corner and select "Settings") to configure Google Scholar to access Georgia State resources.

If you do not see the word Settings, look for the cog icon. 

Select Library Links from the Scholar Settings menu. ​

• enter Georgia State University in search box
• check the box next to check the box next to Georgia State University Find it @ GSU
• check the box next to  "Open WorldCat - Library Search"

• Learn more about Google Scholar

There may be several options for getting to the full text. Find it @ GSU  will either provide access to the full text of the article or provide a link to request a copy through Interlibrary Services (free for you). Don't pay if prompted. Check with the GSU library first.

If you don't find the full text and don't see the Find It @ GSU option, click  on the double arrows ">>"  under the citation to display Find It @ GSU

The Cited by link under the Google Scholar citation is another way to expand your search and find more relevant articles.  When you click on the Cited by link, you will find other publications that cite the article. 

You can also search within the publications that cite the article. Select the checkbox that says "Search within citing articles" and add additional terms to narrow your search. 

To refine your search results, use the limit options to the left of your search results. 

To use Google Scholar Advanced Search options, click on the menu icon in the top left corner of the Goggle Scholar homepage. 

Click on "Advanced Search".

Advanced Search lets you search in the author, title, and publication fields, as well as limit your search results by date.

Related articles:  find articles on the same topic as the citation

All  # versions:  find other versions of the article found on the internet 

Cite:   click on the Quotation Mark icon  to open the Cite Window. Copy and Paste the formatted citation or use one of the links to import the citation into a bibliography manager.

Attribution

This guide was adapted from the University of Connecticut Library's "Finding Information: Using Google Scholar" Guide licensed under CCBYNC 4.0.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/findinformation/googlescholar

• Last Updated: Jan 31, 2023 9:28 AM
• URL: https://research.library.gsu.edu/googlescholar

Open Access Theses and Dissertations

Thursday, April 18, 8:20am (EDT): Searching is temporarily offline. We apologize for the inconvenience and are working to bring searching back up as quickly as possible.

Advanced research and scholarship. Theses and dissertations, free to find, free to use.

Advanced search options

Browse by author name (“Author name starts with…”).

Find ETDs with:

Written in any language English Portuguese French German Spanish Swedish Lithuanian Dutch Italian Chinese Finnish Greek Published in any country US or Canada Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Bolivia Brazil Canada Chile China Colombia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Ireland Italy Japan Latvia Lithuania Malaysia Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Peru Portugal Russia Singapore South Africa South Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand UK US Earliest date Latest date

Sorted by Relevance Author University Date

Only ETDs with Creative Commons licenses

Results per page: 30 60 100

October 3, 2022. OATD is dealing with a number of misbehaved crawlers and robots, and is currently taking some steps to minimize their impact on the system. This may require you to click through some security screen. Our apologies for any inconvenience.

Recent Additions

See all of this week’s new additions.

About OATD.org

OATD.org aims to be the best possible resource for finding open access graduate theses and dissertations published around the world. Metadata (information about the theses) comes from over 1100 colleges, universities, and research institutions . OATD currently indexes 7,241,108 theses and dissertations.

About OATD (our FAQ) .

Visual OATD.org

We’re happy to present several data visualizations to give an overall sense of the OATD.org collection by county of publication, language, and field of study.

You may also want to consult these sites to search for other theses:

• Google Scholar
• NDLTD , the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations. NDLTD provides information and a search engine for electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs), whether they are open access or not.
• Proquest Theses and Dissertations (PQDT), a database of dissertations and theses, whether they were published electronically or in print, and mostly available for purchase. Access to PQDT may be limited; consult your local library for access information.

Articles & Media

Books & eBooks

How to Use Google Scholar

• Introduction
• Get the Full Text

Good news! Google scholar provides citations for articles from the search result list (currently MLA, APA, Chicago, Harvard or Vancouver). 

To grab a citation, click on the  Quotes icon  below an article in your search result list and select from the available citation styles.

As with any resource that provides citations, always double check to make sure formatting is correct. See formatting tips below.

Change it Tips APA

• After pasting the citation in your paper, create a hanging indent. ( follow this link to see how ).
• Make it double spaced ( follow this link to see how ).
• Change the font to match the font of your paper.

Note: Google Scholar does not include DOI information. You'll need to grab the citation from Google Scholar, then click on the title of the article to go to the article page. The article page probably has the DOI, which you should add at the end of the citation with no period following as it can interfere with the link.  

It Should Look Like APA

Taylor, G. (2019). Shakespeare’s Early Gothic Hamlet. 

Critical Survey, 31(1-2), 4-25. 

https://doi.org/10.3167/cs.2019.31010202

Good news! Google scholar provides citations for articles from the search result list ((currently MLA, APA, Chicago, Harvard or Vancouver).

Change it Tips MLA

• Change the font to Times New Roman 12.

It Should look Like MLA

Efron, Bradley, and Robert Tibshirani. "Bootstrap

methods for standard errors, confidence intervals,

and other measures of statistical

accuracy." Statistical Science (1986): 54-75.

• << Previous: Get the Full Text
• Last Updated: May 8, 2023 3:34 PM
• URL: https://libguides.com.edu/googlescholar

© 2023 COM Library 1200 Amburn Road, Texas City, Texas 77591 409-933-8448 . FAX 409-933-8030 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License Class Poll

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Writing a Paper: Thesis Statements

Basics of thesis statements.

The thesis statement is the brief articulation of your paper's central argument and purpose. You might hear it referred to as simply a "thesis." Every scholarly paper should have a thesis statement, and strong thesis statements are concise, specific, and arguable. Concise means the thesis is short: perhaps one or two sentences for a shorter paper. Specific means the thesis deals with a narrow and focused topic, appropriate to the paper's length. Arguable means that a scholar in your field could disagree (or perhaps already has!).

Strong thesis statements address specific intellectual questions, have clear positions, and use a structure that reflects the overall structure of the paper. Read on to learn more about constructing a strong thesis statement.

Being Specific

This thesis statement has no specific argument:

Needs Improvement: In this essay, I will examine two scholarly articles to find similarities and differences.

This statement is concise, but it is neither specific nor arguable—a reader might wonder, "Which scholarly articles? What is the topic of this paper? What field is the author writing in?" Additionally, the purpose of the paper—to "examine…to find similarities and differences" is not of a scholarly level. Identifying similarities and differences is a good first step, but strong academic argument goes further, analyzing what those similarities and differences might mean or imply.

Better: In this essay, I will argue that Bowler's (2003) autocratic management style, when coupled with Smith's (2007) theory of social cognition, can reduce the expenses associated with employee turnover.

The new revision here is still concise, as well as specific and arguable.  We can see that it is specific because the writer is mentioning (a) concrete ideas and (b) exact authors.  We can also gather the field (business) and the topic (management and employee turnover). The statement is arguable because the student goes beyond merely comparing; he or she draws conclusions from that comparison ("can reduce the expenses associated with employee turnover").

Making a Unique Argument

This thesis draft repeats the language of the writing prompt without making a unique argument:

Needs Improvement: The purpose of this essay is to monitor, assess, and evaluate an educational program for its strengths and weaknesses. Then, I will provide suggestions for improvement.

You can see here that the student has simply stated the paper's assignment, without articulating specifically how he or she will address it. The student can correct this error simply by phrasing the thesis statement as a specific answer to the assignment prompt.

Better: Through a series of student interviews, I found that Kennedy High School's antibullying program was ineffective. In order to address issues of conflict between students, I argue that Kennedy High School should embrace policies outlined by the California Department of Education (2010).

Words like "ineffective" and "argue" show here that the student has clearly thought through the assignment and analyzed the material; he or she is putting forth a specific and debatable position. The concrete information ("student interviews," "antibullying") further prepares the reader for the body of the paper and demonstrates how the student has addressed the assignment prompt without just restating that language.

Creating a Debate

This thesis statement includes only obvious fact or plot summary instead of argument:

Needs Improvement: Leadership is an important quality in nurse educators.

A good strategy to determine if your thesis statement is too broad (and therefore, not arguable) is to ask yourself, "Would a scholar in my field disagree with this point?" Here, we can see easily that no scholar is likely to argue that leadership is an unimportant quality in nurse educators.  The student needs to come up with a more arguable claim, and probably a narrower one; remember that a short paper needs a more focused topic than a dissertation.

Better: Roderick's (2009) theory of participatory leadership  is particularly appropriate to nurse educators working within the emergency medicine field, where students benefit most from collegial and kinesthetic learning.

Here, the student has identified a particular type of leadership ("participatory leadership"), narrowing the topic, and has made an arguable claim (this type of leadership is "appropriate" to a specific type of nurse educator). Conceivably, a scholar in the nursing field might disagree with this approach. The student's paper can now proceed, providing specific pieces of evidence to support the arguable central claim.

Choosing the Right Words

This thesis statement uses large or scholarly-sounding words that have no real substance:

Needs Improvement: Scholars should work to seize metacognitive outcomes by harnessing discipline-based networks to empower collaborative infrastructures.

There are many words in this sentence that may be buzzwords in the student's field or key terms taken from other texts, but together they do not communicate a clear, specific meaning. Sometimes students think scholarly writing means constructing complex sentences using special language, but actually it's usually a stronger choice to write clear, simple sentences. When in doubt, remember that your ideas should be complex, not your sentence structure.

Better: Ecologists should work to educate the U.S. public on conservation methods by making use of local and national green organizations to create a widespread communication plan.

Notice in the revision that the field is now clear (ecology), and the language has been made much more field-specific ("conservation methods," "green organizations"), so the reader is able to see concretely the ideas the student is communicating.

Leaving Room for Discussion

This thesis statement is not capable of development or advancement in the paper:

Needs Improvement: There are always alternatives to illegal drug use.

This sample thesis statement makes a claim, but it is not a claim that will sustain extended discussion. This claim is the type of claim that might be appropriate for the conclusion of a paper, but in the beginning of the paper, the student is left with nowhere to go. What further points can be made? If there are "always alternatives" to the problem the student is identifying, then why bother developing a paper around that claim? Ideally, a thesis statement should be complex enough to explore over the length of the entire paper.

Better: The most effective treatment plan for methamphetamine addiction may be a combination of pharmacological and cognitive therapy, as argued by Baker (2008), Smith (2009), and Xavier (2011).

In the revised thesis, you can see the student make a specific, debatable claim that has the potential to generate several pages' worth of discussion. When drafting a thesis statement, think about the questions your thesis statement will generate: What follow-up inquiries might a reader have? In the first example, there are almost no additional questions implied, but the revised example allows for a good deal more exploration.

Thesis Mad Libs

If you are having trouble getting started, try using the models below to generate a rough model of a thesis statement! These models are intended for drafting purposes only and should not appear in your final work.

• In this essay, I argue ____, using ______ to assert _____.
• While scholars have often argued ______, I argue______, because_______.
• Through an analysis of ______, I argue ______, which is important because_______.

Words to Avoid and to Embrace

When drafting your thesis statement, avoid words like explore, investigate, learn, compile, summarize , and explain to describe the main purpose of your paper. These words imply a paper that summarizes or "reports," rather than synthesizing and analyzing.

Instead of the terms above, try words like argue, critique, question , and interrogate . These more analytical words may help you begin strongly, by articulating a specific, critical, scholarly position.

Read Kayla's blog post for tips on taking a stand in a well-crafted thesis statement.

Related Resources

Didn't find what you need? Email us at [email protected] .

• Previous Page: Introductions
• Next Page: Conclusions
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching

Neal robert haddaway.

1 MISTRA EviEM, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden

Alexandra Mary Collins

2 Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom

3 Department for Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs, London, United Kingdom

Deborah Coughlin

4 Department for Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom

Stuart Kirk

5 Environment Agency, London, United Kingdom

Conceived and designed the experiments: NH. Performed the experiments: NH AC. Analyzed the data: NH. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: NH. Wrote the paper: NH AC DC SK.

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Google Scholar (GS), a commonly used web-based academic search engine, catalogues between 2 and 100 million records of both academic and grey literature (articles not formally published by commercial academic publishers). Google Scholar collates results from across the internet and is free to use. As a result it has received considerable attention as a method for searching for literature, particularly in searches for grey literature, as required by systematic reviews. The reliance on GS as a standalone resource has been greatly debated, however, and its efficacy in grey literature searching has not yet been investigated. Using systematic review case studies from environmental science, we investigated the utility of GS in systematic reviews and in searches for grey literature. Our findings show that GS results contain moderate amounts of grey literature, with the majority found on average at page 80. We also found that, when searched for specifically, the majority of literature identified using Web of Science was also found using GS. However, our findings showed moderate/poor overlap in results when similar search strings were used in Web of Science and GS (10–67%), and that GS missed some important literature in five of six case studies. Furthermore, a general GS search failed to find any grey literature from a case study that involved manual searching of organisations’ websites. If used in systematic reviews for grey literature, we recommend that searches of article titles focus on the first 200 to 300 results. We conclude that whilst Google Scholar can find much grey literature and specific, known studies, it should not be used alone for systematic review searches. Rather, it forms a powerful addition to other traditional search methods. In addition, we advocate the use of tools to transparently document and catalogue GS search results to maintain high levels of transparency and the ability to be updated, critical to systematic reviews.

Introduction

Searching for information is an integral part of research. Over 11,500 journals are catalogued by Journal Citation Reports ( http://thomsonreuters.com/journal-citation-reports/ ), and the volume of published scientific research is growing at an ever-increasing rate [ 1 , 2 ]. Scientists must sift through this information to find relevant research, and do so today most commonly by using online citation databases (e.g. Web of Science) and search engines (e.g. Google Scholar). Just as the number of academic articles and journals is steadily increasing, so too are the number of citation databases.

A citation database is a set of citations that can be searched using an online tool, for example Web of Science ( https://webofknowledge.com/ ). These databases typically charge subscription fees for access to the database that do not cover the cost of access to the full text of the research articles themselves. Generally these databases selectively catalogue citations according to a predefined list of journals, publishers or subject areas. Several free-to-use services have recently appeared that search for citations on the internet, most notably Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search. These search engines do not store citations within a specific database, instead they regularly ‘crawl’ the internet for information that appears to be a citation. Some key characteristics of databases and search engines are compared in Table 1 .

According to Thomson Reuters, the Web of Science Core Collections citation database contains almost 50 million research records ( http://wokinfo.com/citationconnection/realfacts/ ; February 2015), with Microsoft Academic Search reporting to catalogue in excess of 45 million records as of January 2013 ( http://academic.research.microsoft.com/About/help.htm#9 ). Google Scholar does not report the volume of citations identifiable via their search facility, although attempts have been made to estimate this that suggest between 1.8 million [ 3 ] and 100 million records [ 4 ] are identifiable.

“Grey literature” is the term given to describe documents not published by commercial publishers, and it may form a vital component of evidence reviews such as systematic reviews and systematic maps [ 5 ], rapid evidence assessments [ 6 ] and synopses [ 7 ]. Grey literature includes academic theses, organisation reports, government papers, etc. and may prove highly influential in syntheses, despite not being formally published in the same way as traditional academic literature e.g. [ 8 ]. Considerable efforts are typically required within systematic reviews to search for grey literature in an attempt to include practitioner-held data and also account for possible publication bias [ 5 , 9 ]. Publication bias is the tendency for significant, positive research to be more likely to be published than non-significant or negative research, leading to an increased likelihood of overestimating effect sizes in meta-analyses and other syntheses [ 10 ]. The inclusion of grey literature is a central tenet of systematic review methodology, which aims to include all available documented evidence and reduce susceptibility to bias.

Academic citation databases are often the first port of call for researchers looking for information. However, access to databases is often expensive; some costing c. £100,000 per annum for organisations of up to 100 employees. Increasingly, researchers are using academic citation search engines to find information (Haddaway, unpublished data). Academic citation search engines appear to represent an attractive alternative to costly citation databases, cataloguing research almost immediately and not restricting results to certain journals, publishers or subject categories. Search engines are particularly attractive to systematic reviewers, since they have the potential to be used to search for grey literature quickly and simply using one search facility rather than a plethora of individual websites [ 5 ].

There is on-going debate regarding the utility of Google Scholar as an academic resource e.g. [ 11 , 12 ], but also as a replacement for traditional academic citation databases and in searches for grey literature in systematic reviews [ 13 , 14 ]. Google Scholar represents an attractive resource for researchers, since it is free-to-use, appears to catalogue vast numbers of academic articles, allows citations to be exported individually, and also provides citation tracking (although see criticism of citation tracking by Delgado Lopez-Cozar et al. [ 15 ]). Google Scholar is also potentially useful in systematic reviews, since reliance on just one such platform for searches would: i) offer resource efficiency, ii) offer cost efficiency, iii) allow rapid linking to full texts, iv) provide access to a substantial body of grey literature as well as academic literature, and v) be compatible with new methods for downloading citations in bulk that would allow for a very transparent approach to searching [ 16 ].

Previous research has shown that articles identified within systematic reviews are identifiable using Google Scholar [ 13 ]. However, other authors have suggested that this does not make Google Scholar an appropriate replacement for academic citation databases, as, in practice, there are considerable limitations in the search facility relative to those of academic databases [ 11 ], and there is on-going debate about Google Scholar’s place in research [ 12 ]. Shultz [ 17 ] listed many limitations that have been attributed to Google Scholar, including that the service permits use of only basic Boolean operators in search strings, which are limited to 256 characters, and that users cannot sort results (although some of the other cited disadvantages have been corrected in recent updates). Two further limitations to the use of Google Scholar in academic searches are the inability to directly export results in bulk as citations (although a limited number of individual citations can be extracted within a set time period) and the display of only the first 1,000 search records with no details of the means by which they are ordered.

Web-based academic search engines, such as Google Scholar, are often used within secondary syntheses (i.e. literature reviews, meta-analyses and systematic reviews). Systematic reviews typically screen the first 50 to 100 search records within Google Scholar e.g. [ 18 , 19 , 20 ], sometimes restricting searches to title rather than full-text searches e.g. [ 21 ]. Such activities are not themselves evidence-based, however. Little is known about how these results are ordered, or what proportion of search results are traditional academic relative to grey literature. Furthermore, this small degree of screening (50 to 100 records) is a very small proportion of the volume of literature found through other sources (often 10s of thousands of records).

Google Scholar has improved greatly in recent iterations; evident from early critiques of the service relative to academic citation databases that cite problems that no longer exist e.g. [ 22 , 23 ]. Whilst the debate on the usefulness of Google Scholar in academic activities has continued in recent years, some improvements to the service offer unequivocal utility; for example, Shariff et al. [ 24 ] found that Google Scholar provided access to almost three times as many articles free of charge than PubMed (14 and 5%, respectively).

Any recommendations in systematic review guidance that are made regarding the allocation of greater resources to the use of academic search engines, such as Google Scholar, should be based on knowledge that such resources are worthwhile, and that academic search engines provide meaningful sources of evidence, and do not correspond to wasted effort.

Here, we describe a study investigating the use of Google Scholar as a source of research literature to help answer the following questions:

• What proportion of Google Scholar search results is academic literature and what proportion grey literature, and how does this vary between different topics?
• How much overlap is there between the results obtained from Google Scholar and those obtained from Web of Science?
• What proportion of Google Scholar and Web of Science search results are duplicates and what causes this duplication ?
• Are articles included in previous environmental systematic reviews identifiable by using Google Scholar alone?
• Is Google Scholar an effective means of finding grey literature relative to that identified from hand searches of organisational websites?

Seven published systematic reviews were used as case studies [ 20 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ] (see Table 2 ). These reviews were chosen as they covered a diverse range of topics in environmental management and conservation, and included interdisciplinary elements relevant to public health, social sciences and molecular biology. The importance and types of grey literature vary between subjects, and a diversity of topics is necessary for any assessment of the utility of a grey literature search tool. The search strings used herein were either taken directly from the string used in Google Scholar in each systematic review’s methods or were based on the review’s academic search string where Google Scholar was not originally searched. Search results in Google Scholar were performed both at “full text” (i.e. the entire full text of each document was searched for the specified terms) and “title” (i.e. only the title of each document was searched for the specified terms) level using the advanced search facility (see https://scholar.google.se/intl/en/scholar/help.html#searching for further details). Searches included patents and citations. Since Google Scholar displays a maximum of 1,000 search results this was the maximum number of citations that could be extracted using the specially developed method described below.

Searches were performed on 06/02/15. Web of Science includes the following databases as part of the MISTRA EviEM subscription; KCI-Korean Journal Database, SciELO Citation Index and Web of Sciences Core Collection.

1. What proportion of Google Scholar search results is grey literature?

A download manager (DownThemAll!; http://www.downthemall.net ) and web-scraping programme (Import.io; http://www.import.io ) were used to download each page of search results (to a maximum of 100 pages; 1000 results) and then extract citations as patterned data from the locally stored HTML files into a database. Two databases (one for the title only search and one for the full text search) for each of the 7 systematic reviews were created, each holding up to 1,000 Google Scholar citations (see S1 File ).

Exported citations were assessed and categorised by NRH and AMC as one of the following types of literature:

• ‘Black’–peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals
• ‘Book’–monographs or complete books produced by commercial publishers
• ‘Book chapter’–chapters within books produced by commercial publishers
• ‘Patent’–registered patents and patent applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
• ‘Thesis’–dissertations from postgraduate degrees (master’s and doctorates)
• ‘Conference’–presentations, abstracts, posters and proceedings from conferences, workshops, meetings, congresses, symposia and colloquia
• ‘Other’–all other literature that may or may not be peer-reviewed, including; reports, working papers, self-published books, etc.
• ‘Unclear’–any search record that could not be categorised according to the above classification (ambiguous citations were discussed by the reviewers and classed as ‘unclear’ if no consensus could be reached due to limited information).

Book chapters are a subcategory of books but have been separated for additional clarity. These categories have been chosen because they reflect the type of information returned by Web of Science (‘black’ literature) and Google Scholar (all literature). The categories also reflect the emergent classifications that were possible based on information in the citations and any associated descriptions.

For each search type (title or full text) the proportion of literature types across the search results was summarised per page of results to assess the relative location of the types within the results.

2. How much overlap is there between Google Scholar and Web of Science?

For each of the 7 systematic review case studies title and full text searches were performed in Google Scholar and Web of Science (25/01/2015) and citation records extracted (all records for Web of Science or the first 1,000 for Google Scholar). Full text search results were not extracted for SR4 since over 47,000 records were returned, which was deemed too expansive for this assessment. The search results were then compared using the fuzzy duplicate identification add-in for Excel described below to investigate the degree of overlap between Web of Science and the first 1,000 Google Scholar search results.

3. What proportion of Google Scholar and Web of Science search results are duplicates and what causes this duplication?

Duplicate records are multiple citations that refer to the same article. They are disadvantageous in search results since they do not represent truly unique records and require time and resources for processing. Duplicates also lead to a false estimation of the size of search results: depending on the level of duplication there may be a significant deviation from the true size of search results. The fourteen databases from the 7 case study systematic reviews described above were screened for Google Scholar duplicates using the Excel Fuzzy Duplicate Finder add-in ( https://www.ablebits.com/excel-find-similar/ ) set to find up to 10 character differences between record titles. Potential duplicates were then manually assessed and reasons for duplication (e.g. spelling mistakes or grammatical differences) were recorded.

Searches were performed using Web of Science (using Bangor University’s subscription consisting of Biological Abstracts, MEDLINE, SciELO, Web of Science Core Collections and Zoological Record) using the same 7 search strings used with the above case studies in Google Scholar for topic words. The first 1,000 search results were extracted and assessed for duplicates on title using the Fuzzy Duplicate Finder as described above. Search results were extracted for records ordered both by relevance and by publication date (newest first), with the exception of SR2, SR5 and SR7, where totals of 230, 1,058 and 1,071 records respectively (all returned) were obtained and extracted in full.

4. Are articles included in previous environmental systematic reviews identifiable using Google Scholar?

In order to examine the coverage of Google Scholar in relation to studies included in environmental management systematic reviews, the lists of included articles following full text assessment were extracted from six reviews (four SRs described in Table 2 ; SR1, SR4, SR5, SR6 and two additional reviews; [ 8 , 31 ]) and each record’s title was searched for using Google Scholar. The option in Google Scholar to include citations was selected. Where titles were not found immediately, quotation marks were used, followed by partial removal of the title where possible typographical errors or punctuation variations might cause a record not to be found. Where records were identified as citations (i.e. Google Scholar found a reference within the reference list of another article) this was also recorded. In addition, references from the final lists of included article for three systematic reviews (SR1, SR4, SR6) were searched for in Web of Science as described for Google Scholar, above.

5. Is Google Scholar an effective means of finding grey literature identified from hand searches of organisational websites?

For another systematic review search string (SR5, Table 2 ) the 84 articles that were identified during searches for grey literature in the published review [ 28 ] from 16 organisational web sites (see S1 Table ) were used to test the ability of Google Scholar to find relevant grey literature using a single search string. The 84 articles were checked against the exported search results for both title and full text searches in Google Scholar (see Methods Section 1 above). The 84 articles were then screened in Google Scholar individually to assess whether they were included in the search engine’s coverage.

1. What proportion of Google Scholar search results is grey literature

Between 8 and 39% of full text search results from Google Scholar were classed as grey literature (mean ± SD: 19% ± 11), and between 8 and 64% of title search results (40% ± 17). Fig 1 displays search results by grey literature category, showing a greater percentage of grey literature than academic literature in title search results (43.0%) than full text results (18.9%). Conference proceedings, theses and “other” grey literature (i.e. reports and white-papers) accounted for the increase in the proportion of grey literature in title searches relative to full text searches. Theses formed a particularly small proportion of the full text search results across all case studies (1.3%), but formed a larger proportion of title search results (6.4%). Similarly, conference proceedings were less common in full text search results (3.2%) than title search results (15.3%). The proportion of patents, book chapters and books was similar in full text and title searches (0.2 and 0.3; 1.7 and 2.5; 4.2 and 2.8% respectively).

When examining the location of literature categories across search results (see S1 Fig ) several patterns emerge. “Peak” grey literature content (i.e. the point at which the volume of grey literature per page of search results was at its highest and where the bulk of grey literature is found) occurred on average at page 80 (±15 (SD)) for full text results, whilst it occurred at page 35 (± 25 (SD)) for title results. Before these points in the search results grey literature content was low in relative terms. For the majority of the case studies it was not until page 20 to 30 that grey literature formed a majority of each page of search results.

Google Scholar demonstrated modest overlap with Web of Science title searches: this overlap ranged from 10 to 67% of the total results in Web of Science ( Table 3 ). The overlap was highly variable between subjects, with reviews on marine protected area efficacy and terrestrial protected area socioeconomic impacts demonstrating the lowest overlap (17.1 and 10.3% respectively). Two case study title searches returned more than the viewable limit of 1,000 search results in Google Scholar (SR1 and SR4) and so only the first 1,000 could be extracted.

See Table 2 for case study explanations.

Full text search results from Google Scholar demonstrated low overlap with Web of Science results ( Table 4 ), ranging from 0.2 to 19.8% of the total Web of Science results.

n/a corresponds to search results that were too voluminous to download in full. See Table 2 for case study explanations.

3. What proportion of Google Scholar and Web of Science search results are duplicates and how do these duplicates come about?

Duplication rates (i.e. the percentage of total results that are duplicate records) for Google Scholar and Web of Science are shown in Table 5 and range from 0.00 to 2.93%. Rates of duplication are substantially higher within Google Scholar than Web of Science, and rates are far higher in title searches within Google Scholar than full text searches ( Table 6 ), although this is quite variable between the 7 case studies (1.0 to 4.8%%).

Numbers in parentheses correspond to the standard deviations of the individual case study duplication rates. Sample size refers to the number of search records in total, followed by the number of independent search strings (i.e. the number of case studies investigated).

Duplication rates are assessed for up to 1,000 search records (or the total number where less than c. 1,300). For Web of Science the full text results were ordered by publication date (newest first) and relevance where more than 1,000 results were returned. Numbers are duplication rate (%) followed by total search records in parentheses.

Duplicates appear to have arisen for a range of reasons. First, typographical errors introduced by manual transcription were found in both Google Scholar (15% of title records) and Web of Science. For example, the sole example of a duplicate from Web of Science is that of the two records that differ only in the spelling of the word ‘Goukamma’ (or Goukarmma) in the following title: “A change of the seaward boundary of Goukamma Marine Protected Area could increase conservation and fishery benefits”. Differences in formatting and punctuation are a subset of typographical errors and corresponded to 18% of title level duplicates. Second, capitalisation causes duplication in Google Scholar, and was responsible for 36% of title level duplicates. Third, incomplete titles (i.e. some missing words) were responsible for 15% of title level duplicates. Fourth, automated text detection (i.e. when scanning documents digitally) was responsible for 3% of title level duplicates. Fifth, Google Scholar also scans for citations within references of selected included literature, and the presence of both these citations and the original articles themselves was responsible for 13% of title level duplication.

Many of the included articles from the six published systematic review case studies were identified when searching for those articles specifically in Google Scholar ( Table 7 ). However, a significant proportion of studies in one review [ 31 ] were not found at all using Google Scholar (31.5%). Other reviews were better represented by Google Scholar coverage (94.3 to 100% of studies). Only one review had an included article list that was fully covered by Google Scholar, the review with the smallest evidence base of only 37 studies [ 31 ]. For those reviews where studies were not identified by Google Scholar, a further search was performed for these missing studies in Web of Science ( Table 7 ), which demonstrated that some of these studies (6 studies from 2 case study reviews) were catalogued by Web of Science.

Records identified as citations are found only within reference lists of other articles (their existence is not verified by the presence of a publisher version or full text article, unlike hyperlinked citations).

1 For those articles not found using Google Scholar, Web of Science searches were carried out using Bangor University subscription (Biological Abstracts, MEDLINE, SciELO Citation Index, Web of Science Core Collections, Zoological Record).

Google Scholar search results that were available only as citations (i.e. obtained from the reference lists of other search results) constituted between 0 and 15.2% of identified results. Citations typically do not lead to web pages that provide additional information and cannot therefore be verified manually by users.

When searching specifically for individual articles, Google Scholar catalogued a larger proportion of articles than Web of Science (% of total in Google Scholar / % of total in Web of Science: SR1, 98.3/96.7; SR4, 94.3/83.9; SR6, 99.4/89.7).

None of the 84 grey literature articles identified by SR5 [ 28 ] were found within the exported Google Scholar search results (68 total records from title searches and 1,000 of a total 49,700 records from full text searches). However, when searched for specifically 61 of the 84 articles were identified by Google Scholar.

This paper set out to investigate the role of Google Scholar in searches for academic and grey literature in systematic and other literature reviews. There is much interest in Google Scholar due to its free-to-use interface, apparent comprehensiveness e.g. [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ], and application within systematic reviews [ 16 ]. However, previous studies have disagreed on whether the service could be used as a standalone resource e.g. [ 11 , 12 ]. Our study enables recommendations to be made for the use of Google Scholar in systematic searches for academic and grey literature, particularly in systematic reviews.

Our results show that Google Scholar is indeed a useful platform for searching for environmental science grey literature that would benefit researchers such as systematic reviewers, agreeing with previous research in medicine [ 32 , 33 ]. Our investigations also demonstrate that more grey literature is returned in title searches than full text searches (43% relative to 19%, respectively), slightly more than previously found in an investigation of full text searching alone in an early version of Google Scholar (13% of total results; [ 17 ]). The grey literature returned by Google Scholar may be seen by some as disadvantageous given its perceived lack of verification (through formal academic peer-review), particularly where researchers are looking for purely traditional academic evidence. However, this may be particularly useful for those seeking evidence from across academic and grey literature domains; for example, those wishing to minimise the risk of publication bias (the over-representation of significant research in academic publications [ 34 ]).

We found that the greatest volume of grey literature in searches occurs at around page 35 for title searches. This finding indicates that researchers, including systematic reviewers, using Google Scholar as a source of grey literature should revise the current common practice of searching the first 50–100 results (5–10 pages) in favour of a more extensive search that looks further into the records returned. Conversely, those wishing to use title searching for purely academic literature should focus on the first 300 results to reduce the proportion of grey literature in their search results.

The grey literature returned in the 7 systematic review case studies examined herein mostly consisted of “other” grey literature and conference proceedings; i.e. white papers and organisational reports. Reports and white papers may prove particularly useful for secondary syntheses, since they may often represent resources that are commissioned by policy and practice decision-makers. Conference proceedings typically represent academic works that have not been formally published in commercial academic journals: such articles may also provide useful evidence for reviewers, particularly systematic reviewers. Academic theses were more common in title searches in Google Scholar, whilst books were more common in full text searches. Theses can provide a vital source of grey literature [ 35 ], research that never makes it into the public domain through academic publications. It is worth noting that whilst academic peer-review is not a guarantee of rigour, research that has not been through formal academic peer-review should be carefully appraised before being integrated into syntheses such as systematic reviews [ 5 ]. Google Scholar may thus prove to be a useful resource in addition to dedicated databases of theses (e.g. DART-Europe; http://www.dart-europe.eu/basic-search.php ) and other grey literature repositories (e.g. ProceedingsFirst; https://www.oclc.org/support/services/firstsearch/documentation/dbdetails/details/Proceeding.en.html ).

Surprisingly, we found relatively little overlap between Google Scholar and Web of Science (10–67% of WoS results were returned using searches in Google Scholar using title searches). For the largest set of results (SR4) only 17% of WoS records were returned in the viewable results in Google Scholar (restricted to the first 1,000 records). However, the actual number of returned results in Google Scholar was 4,310, with only the first 1,000 being viewable due to the limitations of Google Scholar. Assuming an even distribution of overlapping studies across these results we might expect a modest 73% coverage in total (calculated by applying a consistent rate of 17% from the first 1,000 to the full set of 4,310 search records). The limitations of viewable results in Google Scholar make an assessment of overlap impossible when the number of results is greater than 1,000. The case study SR1 only slightly exceeded the viewable limit of 1,000 studies and identified an overlap of 38%, however.

The relatively low overlap between the two services demonstrates that Google Scholar is not a suitable replacement for traditional academic searches: although its results are greater than those in Web of Science, the majority of Web of Science search results are not returned by Google Scholar. However, Google Scholar is a useful addition to traditional database searching, since a large body of search records was returned for each case study that did not overlap, potentially increasing the coverage of any multi-database search, such as those carried out in systematic reviews.

Duplicates within citation databases are disadvantageous because they represent false records. Although the individual reference may be correct, its presence in the database contributes to the number of results. Where large numbers of references must be screened manually, as in systematic reviews, duplicates may also represent a waste of resources where they are not automatically detectable. Duplication rates in Web of Science were very low (0–0.05%), but notably higher in Google Scholar (1–5%). Duplication in Google Scholar occurred as a result of differences in formatting, punctuation, capitalisation, incomplete records, and mistakes during automated scanning and population of the search records. The sensitivity of Google Scholar searches comes at a cost, since identical records are identified as unique references. This may not be a significant problem for small-scale searches, but a 5% duplication rate represents a substantial waste of resources in a systematic review where tens of thousands of titles must be screened manually.

Gehano et al. [ 13 ] found that Google Scholar was able to identify all 738 articles from across 29 systematic reviews in medicine, and concluded that it could be used as a standalone resource in systematic reviews, stating that “if the authors of the 29 systematic reviews had used only GS, no reference would have been missed”. As pointed out by other researchers e.g. [ 14 ], this conclusion is incorrect, since the ability to find specific, known references does not equate to an ability to return these references using a search strategy as might be conducted within a systematic review: most importantly, the relevant articles may be returned outside of the viewable 1,000 records. Giustini and Boulos [ 14 ] found that 5% of studies from a systematic review could not be identified using specific searches in Google Scholar, whilst Boeker et al. [ 11 ] found that up to 34% of studies from 14 systematic reviews were missed.

Google Scholar was able to find much of the existing literature included within the systematic review case studies in our investigations, and indeed found more than Web of Science in the three case studies examined. As such, Google Scholar provides a powerful tool for identifying articles that are already known to exist (for example, when looking for a citation or access to a full text document). In addition, the search engine was also able to identify large amounts of potentially relevant grey literature. However, some important evidence was not identified at all by Google Scholar (31.5% in one case study), meaning that the review may have come to a very different conclusion if it had relied solely on Google Scholar. Similarly, Web of Science alone is insufficient to identify all relevant literature. As described above, Google Scholar may provide a useful source of evidence in addition to traditional academic databases, but it should not be used as a standalone resource in evidence-gathering exercises such as systematic reviews.

Google Scholar was able to identify a large proportion of the grey literature found in one case study through hand searching of organisational websites (61 of 84 articles). However, 23 articles could not be found using the search engine. Furthermore, the 61 articles found were not returned when using a typical systematic review-style search string. Together, these factors demonstrate that Google Scholar is a useful resource in addition to hand searching of organisational websites, returning a large volume of potentially relevant information, but that it should not be used as a standalone resource for grey literature searching, since some vital information is missed. Hand searching, as recommended by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Guidelines in Systematic Reviews [ 5 ], is restricted only to those websites included in an a priori protocol. Google Scholar exhaustively searches the internet for studies, however, and whilst it may be more coarse than fine-level hand searching (i.e. missing studies), the addition of a Google Scholar search targeting grey literature would increase comprehensiveness without giving cause for concern with relation to any systematic bias. However, since the algorithms that order search results are not disclosed, a substantial proportion of search results should be examined.

Other Considerations

As mentioned above, only the first 1,000 search results can be viewed in Google Scholar, and the order in which results are returned is not disclosed. Furthermore, the ‘advanced’ search facility supports only very basic Boolean logic, accepting only one set of ‘OR’ or ‘AND’ arguments, not both. In addition, variations in the way that subscript and superscript text, for example with chemical symbols, are displayed and recognised mean that poor matching occurs during searches where these characters form part of article titles. Finally, Google Scholar has a low threshold for repetitive activity that triggers an automated block to a user’s IP address (in our experience the export of approximately 180 citations or 180 individual searches). Thankfully this can be readily circumvented with the use of IP-mirroring software such as Hola ( https://hola.org/ ), although care should be taken when systematically accessing Google Scholar to ensure the terms of use are not violated.

Conclusions

We have provided evidence that Google Scholar is a powerful tool for finding specific literature, but that it cannot be a replacement for traditional academic citation databases, nor can it replace hand-searching for grey literature. The limitations of the number of search results displayed, the incomplete Boolean operation of the advanced search facility, and the non-disclosure of the algorithm by which search results are ordered mean that Google Scholar is not a transparent search facility. Moreover, the high proportion of grey literature that is missed by Google Scholar mean that it is not a viable alternative to hand searching for grey literature as a stand-alone tool. Despite this, Google Scholar is able to identify a large body of additional grey literature in excess of that found by either traditional academic citation databases or grey literature identification methods. These factors make Google Scholar an attractive supplement to hand searching, further increasing comprehensiveness of searches for evidence.

We also note that the development of tools to take snapshots of search results from Google Scholar and extract these results as citations can significantly increase the efficiency and transparency of using Google Scholar (i.e. beyond the arbitrary first 50 search results currently favoured in many systematic reviews).

Several recommendations can be made based on our findings for those wishing to use Google Scholar as a resource for research evidence:

• 1. Finding : Google Scholar is capable of identifying the majority of evidence in the systematic review case studies examined when searching specifically for known articles.
• Recommendation : Google Scholar is a powerful, free-to-use tool that can be recommended if looking for specific research studies.
• 2. Finding : Google Scholar is not capable of identifying all relevant evidence identified in the systematic review case studies examined, missing some vital information (as did Web of Science).
• Recommendation : Google Scholar (and Web of Science) should not be used as standalone resources for finding evidence as part of comprehensive searching activities, such as systematic reviews.
• 3. Finding: Substantially more grey literature is found using title searches in Google Scholar than full text searches.
• Recommendation: If looking for grey literature, reviewers should consider using title searches. If looking for academic literature title searches will yield a great deal of unsuitable information.
• 4. Finding: Title level searches yield more conference proceedings, theses and ‘other’ grey literature.
• Recommendation: Title level searches may be particularly useful in identifying as yet unpublished academic research grey literature as well as organisational reports and government papers [ 9 ]
• 5. Finding: The majority of grey literature begins to appear after approximately 20 to 30 pages of results.
• Recommendation: If looking for grey literature the results should be screened well beyond the 20 th page.

In summary, we find Google Scholar to be a useful supplement in searches for evidence, particularly grey literature so long as its limitations are recognised. We recommend that the arbitrary assessment of the first 50 search results from Google Scholar, frequently undertaken in systematic reviews, should be replaced with the practice of recording snapshots of all viewable search results: i.e. the first 1,000 records. This change in practice could significantly improve both the transparency and coverage of systematic reviews, especially with respect to their grey literature components.

Supporting Information

Search results by page for 7 case studies (see Table 2 for descriptions), for a) full text and b) title searches. Results displayed are for the total number of extractable records in Google Scholar.

Database of Google Scholar full text and title searches for 7 case study systematic reviews.

List of organisations yielding potentially relevant evidence for a systematic review on the human wellbeing impacts of terrestrial protected areas.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Helen Bayliss and Beth Hall for discussion of the topic. AMC acknowledges a Policy Placement Fellowship funded by the Natural Environment Research Council, the UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency. Some ideas for this project were prompted by a forthcoming Defra research project (WT1552).

Funding Statement

AMC acknowledges a Policy Placement Fellowship funded by the Natural Environment Research Council, the UK Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency. Some ideas for this project were prompted by a forthcoming Defra research project (WT1552). NH was hosted at Bangor University ( http://www.bangor.ac.uk/ ).

Data Availability

• Write my thesis
• Thesis writers
• Buy thesis papers
• Bachelor thesis
• Master's thesis
• Thesis editing services
• Thesis proofreading services
• Buy a thesis online
• Write my dissertation
• Dissertation proposal help
• Pay for dissertation
• Custom dissertation
• Dissertation help online
• Buy dissertation online
• Cheap dissertation
• Dissertation editing services
• Write my research paper
• Buy research paper online
• Pay for research paper
• Research paper help
• Order research paper
• Custom research paper
• Cheap research paper
• Research papers for sale
• Thesis subjects
• How It Works

100+ Best Google Scholar Research Topics

Google Scholar provides a simple and unique way to search for scholarly literature. In a nutshell, it is a search engine for educational applications, especially dissertation and thesis research. Unfortunately, writing a dissertation, thesis, or research paper that is researchable on google scholar can be challenging, especially when finding a good topic or think about pay for dissertation .

Top Google Scholar Research Proposal Topics

Great examples of google scholar thesis topics, great google scholar dissertation topics, creative google scholar research topics in marketing, great google scholar research topics in computer science, fantastic google scholar accounting research topics, excellent google scholar research topics in education, samples of google scholar research topics in business, the best google scholar research topics for nursing, incredible google scholar research topics in economics, top google scholar research topics in finance, interesting google scholar research topics in psychology, top google scholar research topics in chemistry, good google scholar quantitative research topics, good google scholar qualitative research topics.

A good google scholar search by topic should be well-researched, original, exciting and compelling, clear and competitive, relevant to your field of study, manageable, and enticing. If you are seeking excellent google scholar topics in 2022, you are in the right place. We spent hours creating some interesting ideas listed below for you.

A good google scholar research proposal topic should be unique and original. Also, it should be relevant to your area of study. Here are examples of research topics research google scholar search:

• The relationship between the relevance of search engines and clicks
• How does implicit impact provide better results from search engines?
• Ways to enhance the effectiveness of search engines
• Is social media experience dependent on search engines?
• Social media vs. traditional media: The analytics
• A comparison of social networks and search engines for information seeking
• How to use search engines for better decision-making

A thesis paper involves comprehensive research and is required to complete a master’s degree. Therefore, when choosing a topic, you must not forget its vitality. Below are some exciting google scholar thesis topics you should explore:

• Paid placement strategies for website search engines
• The causes of the decline in employment rates
• Are men more employable than women?
• Climate change and its impact on natural resources
• Bullying in schools: Measures to prevent it
• Climate change trends over the last four years
• Is there a correlation between school status and performance?

A dissertation is a research project completed by undergraduate and postgraduate students. A good topic can make your project easy or complicate it more than it should. Here are some incredible google scholar dissertation topic examples:

• The pros and cons of international joint ventures
• Impacts of organizational culture on business decision making
• Does organizational culture influence performance?
• Does training employees alter business productivity?
• Human resource strategies for non-profit organizations
• An extensive exploration of cultural changes and their impacts on social lives
• How the integration of technology in the SCM sector works

Creativity is a critical element in creating great topics. Here are some marketing google scholar research topics:

• How companies can influence the consumer buying behavior
• The impact of social media advertising on consumer behavior
• The interwoven impacts of brand marketing and political campaigns
• An overview of the outcomes of advertising strategies in a recession
• How impulse buying influences the internet world
• An analysis of customer retention in online businesses
• How businesses are positioning themselves for hard economic times

As we have said earlier, a good google scholar research topic should be relevant to the specific field of study. So here are topics relevant to computer science:

• An analysis of search algorithms
• The evolution of artificial intelligence over the past ten years
• The role of human intelligence in artificial intelligence
• How do mobile gadgets employ unique software development?
• A data-based comparison of iOS and Android
• The role of development in future computer systems
• Effective ways of improving computer data security

Finding a research topic in accounting can cause a headache. So, we prepared the following examples:

• The impact of managerial accounting in large corporate organizations
• Activity-based costing: meaning and components
• How accounting can revolutionize medical care
• A look at the accounting parameters in public service
• How managerial accounting influences global finance practices
• How does managerial accounting influence human resources?
• Capital budgeting: What is it all about?

Even education students benefit from the google scholar search engine. Here are some education-related google scholar research topics:

• An analysis of the real-time performance of education data
• Online vs. offline studies: The comparison
• Why the present curriculums are generating results
• The mental impacts of distance learning
• Creative ways of monitoring student’s mental health
• Ways to empower girls’ education
• The role of technology in digital learning

You may also benefit from some topic inspirations in business. Here are some business-related research topics on google scholar ;

• Theories in outsourcing and the findings
• Business understaffing in today’s setting explained
• Are most businesses reluctant on technology?
• How can companies survive international competition?
• The value of educating the public on international investment
• How to transform a local business into an internationally recognized brand
• Economic problems that small local businesses incur

Here are some excellent google scholar nursing research topics you can rely on. While nursing is a broad topic, these are some of the best topics.

• The nursing adaptation in the digital era
• Health issues that immigrant women face
• How technology in nursing favors the maternal sector
• A look at the nurses vs. doctors relationship in the private sector
• Guidelines for promoting diversity in the nursing sector
• How can the nursing sector overcome vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women?
• New developments in childhood cancer treatment

Studying economics is exciting, until when it comes to writing research papers. Let’s look at excellent google scholar project topics in economics:

• How income changes influence consumer choices
• Is the cost of living likely to shift in two years?
• The influence of governance on economics
• A comparison of the impacts of labor force participation on the budget and economy
• The connections between salary levels and economic conflict in the United States
• An analysis of salary fluctuations in your country
• An exploration of the evolution of consumption in your country over the past ten years

Do you want to write a research paper in finance? Here are research paper google scholar research topics for your consideration:

• How can finance serve as a tool for regulating economies?
• The role of financial markets in the mobilization and dispersal of financial resources
• Financial challenges that third-world countries face
• Comparing finance utilization in the private and public sector
• Joint-stock companies and the financial challenges they encounter
• The financial function of social security in your country

Here are great title examples on psychology to give you an idea of what’s expected.

• Examining the concept of free will in the current society
• Finding an equilibrium between the conscious and unconscious mind
• The impact of bullying and harassment on mental well-being in adulthood
• How psychology is shaping the modern world
• How social phobias and anxiety influences psychological growth
• The impact of effective parenting on child development

Here are examples of top google scholar research topics in chemistry:

• The knowledge of chemistry and how it influences farmers
• Avoiding pesticides in agriculture
• How farmers should view GMO
• The role of sustainable elements in the chemical synthesis
• The function of organic chemical reactivity functioning
• The side effect chains of amino acids

Let’s look at some great google scholar – research topics in quantitative research:

• The link between mortality rates and the sex of individuals
• Effective ways to promote the acceptance of cancer screening processes
• Data-based analysis of mortality rates on kids below five.
• The impact of unhealthy workplaces on individuals’ mental health
• How to develop critical thinking
• How has education fueled the success of the technological sector?

Here are google scholar research topics in qualitative research:

• How long-term planning methods improve project management
• The best practices when dealing with time management and goal setting
• Guidelines for achieving affordable medical care in low-income societies
• An analysis of dealing with loss and the recovery process
• Is poor kids’ upbringing a contributor to bad performance in schools?
• How to establish eco-friendly facemasks

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

How to Publish in Google Scholar?

When searching for academic information or articles, there are several ways to do it. You can use Internet search engines, but the results of this search may come from unreliable sources ; or you can approach virtual libraries or academic search engines. Among all the academic search engines and databases that we can currently find, Google Scholar stands out.

Google Scholar is a search engine specialized in academic documents, whether they are articles, books, theses, etc. This documentation can come from different sources, whether publishers, universities, or journals. Google Scholar works in a very similar way to Google's own search engine, performing a search in the search bar and displaying the results following an algorithm similar to the one used in the browser.

In this article, we will explain the steps to get your article published in Google Scholar, how to perform searches and the benefits of this academic search engine.

How Do I Publish My Article in Google Scholar?

First of all, you need to access Google Scholar and log in. Generally, like with the Google browser, Google Scholar will log in with the email account that you have by default in the search engine.

If you are using Google Scholar for the first time, My profile section will appear at the top left. This section will look like this:

If you enter with your institution's email, Google will most likely give you a warning and recommend you enter a personal email, to ensure that you will always have access to your Scholar account. In the sections that appear you will be able to enter your institution's email if you want to.

Once you have filled in the required fields, you will arrive at a new section where you will have the option to search for your academic articles, so that you can easily add them to your profile.

You can select from the articles shown or search by a different name in the search bar above. It also allows you to search for articles individually or by groups of articles. To do this, select Groups or Articles at the top.

When you have selected your articles, you can move on to the next step, where you will have the option of modifying some features regarding your account.

By following these steps, you will now be able to view your articles from your own profile. Once here, you will also be able to modify your profile data, add a visible photo and specify the fields you are interested in.

Add Articles Manually

To add publications that do not appear in Google Scholar, you can go to the add article manually option in your profile.

Once you have clicked here, a window will appear where you can enter the information to use as a bibliographic reference, as it is not possible to enter the whole article.

Tip : Be sure to keep your profile updated and confirm that the articles displayed are yours and remove those that are not. In case any article is detected that is not of your authorship, penalties may be applied.

How to Search in Google Scholar?

Similar to how the Google search engine works, Google Scholar has a search bar to enter the terms you are interested in. Once you have entered them, a series of results will appear, sorted in a similar way to how the browser's algorithm does.

In this search screen, you will see different options. In the left bar, you will have the option to filter the articles by year. You will also find the option to sort the articles by relevance or by date. In addition, like Google alerts, you will be able to create your own alerts, that will notify you in case there are new articles published on a specific topic that may be of your interest.

Under each article, you can also find several options:

• Save : With this option, you can save the article in your own library to read it later or to have quicker access in case you need to come back to it.
• Cite : this option takes you to the section where you will be able to cite the specific article and in which format you want the citation. The options given are BibTex , EndNote , RefMan, and RefWorks . Right next to it, it also shows you the number of citations that the article you are consulting has and the access to those same citations.
• Related articles : related academic articles.
• Versions : not all articles have this section. In case it does, it shows you all the versions that can be found of the article.

Benefits of Google Scholar

Having explained how Google Scholar works, the question is: what advantages can we extract from its use?

• It allows you to search a wide variety of academic documentation , from scientific articles to theses, including conference papers. This gives you access to a wide range of information that can support your research.
• When using a search engine, it allows us to enter the search terms of what we are looking for. Not only that, but it also allows us to find related material that may be useful with the search engine's own suggestions.
• It shows us how many times an article has been cited (either our own or someone else's) as well as where it has been cited and the citation style that has been used for it. It can also be used to cite an article ourselves.
• You can easily save articles for later access.
• You can find documents in different languages.
• It's a very complete tool to find Open Access documentation on the Internet , without necessarily having to search for it on a specific site.
• Anyone can access this search engine and find articles on any academic topic in which they may be interested, whether they are related to the academic field or not.

Orvium Connects You to Google Scholar

Now that you know better what Google Scholar is and how it works, you can see how important it is that your article is correctly indexed and that it shows up in this search engine easily. Google Scholar is a tool that promotes Open Access to different articles and helps your document to have more reach and visibility.

Therefore, at Orvium we are indexed with both Google Scholar and OpenAire , ensuring that all articles displayed on our platform can be easily found in this search engine.

If you want to know more about how we work, do not hesitate to visit our website and get more information.

• Academic Resources

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get the latest posts delivered right to your inbox.

Now check your inbox and click the link to confirm your subscription.

Please enter a valid email address

Oops! There was an error sending the email, please try later.

Leyre Martínez

Recommended for you.

How to Write a Research Funding Application | Orvium

Increasing Representation and Diversity in Research with Open Science | Orvium

Your Guide to Open Access Week 2023