Comparing Pubmed And Google Scholar
9
5
Entering edit mode
12.9 years ago
Anima Mundi ★ 2.9k

Hello,

I would like to know which of the two tools (compared here) you do prefer, and eventually the reasons of your choice.

pubmed subjective • 4.8k views
ADD COMMENT
2
Entering edit mode

An interesting but subjective question. Community wiki?

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

I agree, it is a very subjective question. It is fair to treat it as a community wiki.

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

The question now asks for arguments why one is better than the other... that's not too subjective...

ADD REPLY
5
Entering edit mode
12.9 years ago

Pubmed has more advanced search capabilities. Google Scholar's main advantage is that it indexes more sources for example it keeps track of the computer science papers published/presented at various conferences. These are not listed at all by pubmed or even ISI. In some fields of comp-sci the conferences carry a bigger weight than journals.

ADD COMMENT
2
Entering edit mode
12.8 years ago
Mary 11k

I know this is an old thread now, but just wanted to add this to the discussion for archival purposes:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/114096599366011465749/posts/HDAL7BPT1Yd

The paper under discussion: Google Scholar duped and deduped – the aura of “robometrics” http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1907378&show=html

If this is true, Scholar is easily duped. I think this is less likely with PubMed, although I have seen some silly stuff in there, it is at least traceable.

ADD COMMENT
1
Entering edit mode
12.9 years ago
Mary 11k

For me it's definitely PubMed, with occasional forays into Scholar. I use MeSH terms and history a lot at PubMed. And I love the MyNCBI options.

I find a lot of inconsistent duplications in Scholar too--never find that in PubMed.

Part if it may be historical too--I've used PubMed a lot longer and am just used to it and it's features.

ADD COMMENT
1
Entering edit mode

yeah, the duplications get annoying on google-scholar.

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

I have seen one duplication at PubMed, but that is just one in thousands of abstracts/pubs returned.

ADD REPLY
1
Entering edit mode
12.9 years ago
Will 4.5k

I prefer Pubmed because it gives me PMIDS/PMCIDS which makes it easier to index them later. The old Author/Year indexing is impractical in this day and age.

I also HATE google-scholar's 'Import to EndNote' feature. It occasionally formats them as 'Ancient Manuscripts'. Which is nice for the occasional chuckle (especially when the paper is only 2 years old) but it messes up the meta-data.

ADD COMMENT
1
Entering edit mode
12.9 years ago
Yogesh Pandit ▴ 520

PubMed is better for me. Quite a few reasons; You can access it using an EUtilities. For your query you can find related results from other NCBI databases like Genome, Nucleotide, Protein. You can download XML, PMID list and full-text using PMC. PageRank may not be the solution to find out latest publications in research

ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
12.9 years ago
Anima Mundi ★ 2.9k

Personally I think that Google Scholar has as most interesting features the capability to trace gray literature and the user-friendly appearing, while the point of straight of Pubmed are the non redundancy and the pertinence of the results as well as the implementation of the MeSH terms. Often, for quick searches I use just Google Scholar. For deep searches I relay primarily on Pubmed, using Google Scholar as a secondary tool.

ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
12.9 years ago

Google Scholar is for me the rising star. It did a really great job at identifying my research output. The scope is slightly different I guess, but Google Scholar captures way more research output, including book chapters, (student) project reports, and output in other languages. The latter allow me to identify research groups much earlier (student projects etc) much earlier than with other research output.

ADD COMMENT
2
Entering edit mode

The problem with google scholar is that it is not open. I for starters cannot generate my research output the way you did, because I did not get an invitation. Furthermore, forget to aggregate google scholar results in other tools, scholar does not have an api, so it is rather difficult to compare google scholar data with other sources

ADD REPLY
1
Entering edit mode

We found issues with citation list. Also there I have duplications and odd stuff. And my colleague had missing ones that can't be corrected because of a punctuation error.

@Andra: we found that although the first time the tried the profile tool it failed, going back later worked. And there was a G+ discussion I saw about people who were able to get in after a couple of tries as well.

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

Andra, randomly trying now and then got me in too. I expect it to go further Open at some point (rather sooner than later), and assume we'll see an Open API too. If not, it's a closed story for me too. Mary, there is an option to manually add entries. Did that not work?

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode
12.9 years ago

I tend to use both in different ways. I use Google Scholar to interface with my library's databases and to follow reverse citations and related articles. When I want to capture citation information with Zotero I'll generally use Google Scholar's link to the Pubmed version, as it is generally much cleaner (including journal abbreviation, DOI, etc.). However, if I'm in the middle of writing I'll often just copy and paste Google Scholar's BibTeX output into my .bib file.

ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
12.9 years ago
Daniel ★ 4.0k

The main problem I find with google scholar is that it doesnt base the results that it shows on anything other than if the 'paper' is formatted like a 'paper'. Since finding this out I've spent a lot more time checking out the credibility of the journals that my sources come from. Still doesnt stop me using it though.

Source: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/how_to_game_google_scholar.php

ADD COMMENT

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 1329 users visited in the last hour
Help About
FAQ
Access RSS
API
Stats

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Powered by the version 2.3.6
https://www.biostars.org/p/11677/#11689
www.biostars.org
CC-MAIN-2024-33
56489
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:7UQTBBBV3ZTLBO6QQC72R2KFUJHFLEBJ
<urn:uuid:9339d47f-14fa-4e49-82e7-e0da3aa53756>
2024-08-10T14:04:48Z
45.79.169.51
text/html
sha1:OMYHNY2XUYGPBVNOPAP2M7LWPDSHSRMA
<urn:uuid:cd587f22-e522-426e-bba5-b714ba3e7bd0>
https://www.biostars.org/p/11677/#11689
response
<urn:uuid:e2844b56-d649-44c3-a576-7957efa77eec>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-33
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-195
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/