Filter bubbles in interdisciplinary research: a case study on climate and society
| Pages | 225-236 |
| Published date | 18 June 2018 |
| Date | 18 June 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-03-2017-0052 |
| Author | Susanne Mikki,Hemed Ali Al Ruwehy,Øyvind Liland Gjesdal,Marta Zygmuntowska |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Librarianship/library management,Library technology,Information behaviour & retrieval,Information user studies,Metadata,Information & knowledge management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
Filter bubbles in interdisciplinary
research: a case study on
climate and society
Susanne Mikki, Hemed Ali Al Ruwehy, Øyvind Liland Gjesdal and
Marta Zygmuntowska
Library, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to compare the content of Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar
(GS) by searching the interdisciplinary field of climate and ancient societies. The authors aim at analyzing the
retrieved documents by open availability, received citations, co-authors and type of publication.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors searched the services by a defined set of keyword.
Data were retrieved and analyzed using a variety of bibliometric tools such as Publish or Perish, Sci2Tool and
Gephi. In order to determine the proportion of open full texts based on the WoS result, the authors relocated
the records in GS, using an off-campus internet connection.
Findings –The authorsfound that the top 1,000 downloadableand analyzable GS items matchedpoorly with
the items retrievedby WoS. Based on this approach (subject searching), the services appearedcomplementary
rather thansimilar. Even though the first searchresults differ considerably by service,almost each single WoS
title could be located in GS. Based on GS’s full text recognition, the authors found 74 percent of WoS items
openly availableand the citation median of these was twice ashigh as for documents behind paywalls.
Research limitations/implications –Even though the study is a case study, the authors believe that
findings are transferable to other interdisciplinary fields. The share of freely available documents, however,
may depend on the investigated field and its culture toward open publishing.
Practical implications –Discovering the literature of interdisciplinary fields puts scholars in a challenging
situation and requires a better understanding of the existing infrastructures. The authors hope that the paper
contributes to that and can advise the research and library communities.
Originality/value –In light of an overwhelming and exponentially growing amount of literature,
the bibliometric approach is new in a library context.
Keywords Information retrieval, Bibliometrics, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Open access, Online databases
Paper type Case study
Introduction
Web of Science (WoS) and Google Scholar (GS) are two of the main tools to identify and
access scholarly literature. WoS requires a subscription but offers controlled metadata and
advanced search features. GS in turn is freely accessible but has its shortcoming both
concerning the use of metadata and searching.
In the last few years, a lot has been written about these shortcomings. Even though GS is
used extensively by researchers (Van Noorden, 2014), mainly the lack of transparency in
regard to coverage and quality is still problematic (e.g. Jacsó 2010; Prins et al., 2016).
However, there have been improvements in the algorithm ( Jacsó, 2010), and documents are
now merged more successfully (Orduña-Malea et al., 2014). While Mikki (2010) reported
7.7 percent duplicates in 2010, four years later, Sjögårde (2014) reported only 1 percent. The
service seems to be stable over time, although reproduction and verification remains
challenging (Bramer, 2016; Pariser, 2011). However, in contrary to the so-called Google filter
bubble as coined by Pariser (2011), no such effect can be observed in the scholarly context.
Based on keyword searching, Yu et al. (2017) compared GS results, from IPs located at
different geographic locations, finding 90 percent agreement.
Undoubtedly, the strength of GS compared to WoS lies in its wide content coverage
regarding type of publication and field of research. Still, the size of GS is a well-preserved
company secret. It is estimated to contain between 100 and 170 million documents
Library Hi Tech
Vol. 36 No. 2, 2018
pp. 225-236
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0737-8831
DOI 10.1108/LHT-03-2017-0052
Received 10 March 2017
Revised 15 May 2017
Accepted 5 July 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0737-8831.htm
225
Filter bubbles in
interdisciplinary
research
To continue reading
Request your trial