{"id":71,"date":"2006-05-19T16:27:05","date_gmt":"2006-05-19T20:27:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mat.tepper.cmu.edu\/blog\/?p=57"},"modified":"2006-05-19T16:27:05","modified_gmt":"2006-05-19T20:27:05","slug":"google-scholar-and-or","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mat.tepper.cmu.edu\/blog\/index.php\/2006\/05\/19\/google-scholar-and-or\/","title":{"rendered":"Google Scholar and OR"},"content":{"rendered":"

One issue in faculty reviews is trying to determine the effect the research of a faculty member is having. For that, we do things like get outside letters, read papers, and so on. In the past, we also checked things like the Science Citation Index<\/a> for counts on how often a paper is referenced. Recently, Google Scholar<\/a> has taken on that role, for better or worse. It is better than SCI in the sense it lists very recent references that may not be in the published literature yet. It also is very wide ranging, catching things SCI doesn’t catch. Of course, it may also catch garbage, but that is the tradeoff. It also undercounts older papers that don’t have as strong an online presence.<\/p>\n

One surrogate for “effect” is number of references in Google Scholar. I thought it would be interesting to see the OR work with the most references. Here are a few I found:<\/p>\n