The findings provide first-time size estimates of ProQuest and EbscoHost and indicate that Google Scholar’s size might have been underestimated so far by more than 50%. The queries used here are replicable, so size information can be updated quickly. The results were validated in terms of their capacity to assess database size by comparing them with official information on database sizes or previous scientometric studies. Iterative query optimization makes it possible to identify a maximum number of hits for most ASEBDs. In doing so, we build on and refine previous scientometric research by counting query hit data as an indicator of the number of accessible records. This study aims to fill this blind spot by providing a comparative picture of 12 of the most commonly used ASEBDs.
Consequently, there is no up-to-date comparative information on the sizes of popular ASEBDs. While scientometric studies have estimated ASEBD sizes before, the methods employed were able to compare only a few databases. Hence, it is difficult to assess the scope of specific databases, such as Google Scholar. Information on the size of academic search engines and bibliographic databases (ASEBDs) is often outdated or entirely unavailable.
0 kommentar(er)
