Background and aim: Citation is the most important scientific elements and assessment index among researchers, universities and research centers. The aim of this study was to compare the citations of researchers in the field of engineering in Scopus, Google Scholar and Google Books.Material and methods: This study investigated the relationship between citations using citation analysis and data were extracted from Scopus from 2008 to 2012. Totally, 100 subjects were randomly selected using Webometric Analyst, and the numbers of citations were transferred to SPSS and analyzed.Findings: Results showed that the median of citations to articles was 4, 6 and 1 in Scopus, Google Scholar and Google Books. Although there was no difference between the mean of Google Scholar and Scopus, it was found that the citations had high distribution based on variance values. Most of the citations to articles in Google Scholar, Scopus and Google Books were 1061, 652 and 72, respectively.Conclusion: There was a direct and significant relationship between the citations of Scopus and Google Scholar; therefore, the use of all three bases regardless of overlapping articles showed the better results in evaluation of scientific outputs. Moreover, even, assessing the scientific outputs can be performed through Google Scholar in case of lack of access to Scopus.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the researchers’,situations in the field of sport marketing based on data available in Google Scholar. Methods: This research was a descriptive and quantita-tive content analysis. The study population was all 229 researchers in Google Scholar who introduced themselves on the subject of Sport Marketing studies in March 2021. The data collection tool was a coding sheet and its in-struction which was used after confirming its validity and reliability. The collected data was analyzed by descriptive statistics. Results: Findings showed from among 229 sport market-ing researchers in the Google Scholar database, 84 were (about 37%) from the United States. After the United States, Iran ranks second with 60 people (about 26% of the research population). This frequency is significantly reduced in other countries. For example, Canada with 9 people, Japan and South Korea with 6 people, Greece with 5 people, Australia, Portugal and Turkey with 4 peo-ple, France, Spain and Taiwan with 3 people are in the next ranks. The other countries are in the next category with 2 or 1 representatives. Conclusion: It is noteworthy that only 37 countries had a research representative called Sport Marketing in the Google Scholar database.

Background and Aim: The main aim of Information storage and retrieval systems is keeping and retrieving the related information means providing the related documents with users’ needs or requests. This study aimed to answer this question that how much are the system relevance and User- Oriented relevance are matched in SID, SCI and Google Scholar databases.Method: In this study 15 keywords of the most repeated ones that were related to “Human Information Interaction” and its subheadings were selected and searched both in Persian and in English in the mentioned databases for two one week periods. The results were arranged according to the system relevance based on the retrieval and displaying order. From each search the first 10 results were selected and sent to the subject experts and asked them to rank from 1 to 10. Data were descriptively and analytically (using Spearman correlation test) analyzed by SPSS software.Results: Subject experts’ relevance score in Persian was lower in ISC than SID and higher than Google Scholar. The most subject relevant records were in the third score of system relevance. The records with the lowest system relevance score also had the lowest subject experts’ relevance score. SID in Persian had a strong and positive relation between the both scores but there was no relation in ISC. The highest matching level of the both scores was seen in SID in both languages on the both periods which means more likely to retrieve relevant records.Conclusion: There is a similar retrieval pattern in both languages with subject expert’s view in SID showing the highest precision which was the lowest in Google Scholar in Persian

Purpose: The main purpose of this research was to identify the rate of familiarity of Tehran University graduate students from Google Scholar database.Methodology: This research is applied one that has done through analytical survey research method. Researcher made questionnaire is used for data gathering. All of Tehran university graduate students form research community are included in this study. Sampling method is used to determine the sample group, due to the high number of students.Findings: Findings showed that the majority of students are aware of being free of Google Scholar search engine. However, the majority of graduate students at Tehran University are much less familiar with the advantages and disadvantages of various Google Scholar services. Overall, it was concluded that the level of familiarity of graduate students at Tehran University with Google Scholar services was low.Conclusion: This research is the first one that concentrated on the level of familiarity of graduate students at Tehran University with Google Scholar database.

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the role of Google Scholar effectiveness in the retrieval of the most cited authors' information and publications under different name versions.Method: This research was applied and has been done under the Survey-Descriptive method. Data collection was done through the field and library methods. The study population included 10 most cited authors in 5 fields which were gathered from In-cite webpage through non-probability sampling method. Different versions of the authors' name retrieval were adjusted to his publications’ check list. Findings: The recall result of the 12 variables (The formula used to search authors' names) showed that only 4 out of 10 cases were above than the recall average and precision in all of the variables, were below the average level. Friedman test was prioritized for the recall and precision average factors which showed that no variable is better than the other. The results of the student test for measuring the independence of 1 to 6 variables (different names of authors without limiting to a subject) showed that there were not any differences between these two categories of variables but the precision in 1to 6 variables (different names of authors without limiting a subject) is higher than the name limitations of the subjects. Overall, the results suggested that Google Scholar which is used to retrieve the various versions of authors’ names is usually not desirable.

Background The aim of the present research is to investigate the research outputs on ethics and technology from the perspective of teachers, based on Google Scholar, from 1983 to 2020. Methods This applied and quantitative study used descriptive and bibliometric methods. The population and sample of the study were 1343 documents retrieved from Google Scholar between 1983 and 2020. Harzing’ s Publish or Perish software was used to collect data. VOSviwer and SPSS software were used respectively for visualizing co-authorship network and statistical cases. Results Based on findings, in the first 16 years only 84 documents were published; the number of publications during the next years steadily increased. About 64% of the papers were written by one author; while only less than 3% of papers had five or six authors. Also, Spearman correlation test showed that there was a significant and positive association between publication year with Google Scholar rank as well as between publication year and the number of authors per paper. The association between publication year and citation per author and publication year with citation was negative and significant. Furthermore, in the present study, the core authors based on co-authorship network and Collaborative Coefficient (CC) were identified. Conclusion In Google Scholar the new published papers are retrieved and placed in the first ranks. The number of citations per author and number of citations in total increased when the year of publication decreased. It seems the number of published papers is not reason enough to receive higher citation.

Aim: Scientific recommender systems have been developed to provide users with resources that are close to their information needs. The main objective of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of the related articles recommender systems in Google Scholar and Web of Science databases from the users’ perspectives. Methods: This is an applied research with comparative approach. The samples included both human and paper ones. The human samples consisted of 120 Ph. D. candidates at Shiraz University. From among each field, thirty students (i. e., totally 120 students) participated in the study. The paper samples consisted of 2, 400 related papers, 1200 of which were retrieved from Google Scholar, and 1, 200 of which were retrieved from Web of Science database. The data were collected by a questionnaire and software. Results: The results showed that users considered both Google Scholar and Web of Science databases as effective in retrieving the related articles. There were significant differences between each of the four areas of humanities, basic sciences, engineering, agriculture and veterinary science in terms of the effectiveness of the related articles function. In addition, both databases represented the least number of related articles and the largest number of unrelated articles in the area of humanities. Originality: Despite the importance of related articles recommender systems, there was no evidence that measures the effectiveness of related articles recommender systems in Web of Science and Google Scholar.