How Interesting to see the different ways one would read a paper:-) I read
this paper some time ago and assumed the author was saying Google Scholar
algorithms are extensive and improving so that many papers can be found
this way if you know what you are looking for.
I thought is was like a talking points paper that was asking could Google
one day be good enough to replace traditional search. With a librarians
help and good keywords the search is superior with multiple databases
right now, it is a bit unmanageable with Google and not systematic. It is
easy to miss a major way of looking at the question and the papers that go
with this by not doing this in the traditional way. Although if I am
already familiar with the literature and reviews on the topic Google
Scholar can find a recent paper the search missed.
Best
Amy
On 11/15/15, 7:29 PM, "Evidence based health (EBH) on behalf of Catherine
Voutier" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi Jon
>
>Just had to chime in about the Gehanno paper. It has been very
>controversial and much talked about in medical library circles - neatly
>summarised by this blog post:
>https://laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/no-google-scholar-shouldnt-
>be-used-alone-for-systematic-review-searching/
>
>Catherine Voutier
>Clinical Librarian
>Royal Melbourne Hospital
|