{"id":108,"date":"2018-01-22T20:02:10","date_gmt":"2018-01-22T20:02:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-webliteracy\/chapter\/using-google-scholar-to-check-author-expertise\/"},"modified":"2018-01-22T20:02:10","modified_gmt":"2018-01-22T20:02:10","slug":"using-google-scholar-to-check-author-expertise","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-webliteracy\/chapter\/using-google-scholar-to-check-author-expertise\/","title":{"raw":"Using Google Scholar to Check Author Expertise","rendered":"Using Google Scholar to Check Author Expertise"},"content":{"raw":"

Not all, or even most, expertise is academic. But when the expertise cited is academic, scholarly publications by the researcher can go a long way to establishing their position in the academic community.\n\nLet\u2019s look at David Bann, who wrote the PLOS Medicine article we looked at a chapter ago. To do that we go to Google Scholar (not the general Google page) and type in his name:\n\n\"\"\n\nWe see a couple things here. First, he has a history of publishing in this area of lifespan obesity patterns. At the bottom of each result we see how many times each article he is associated with is cited: these aren\u2019t amazing numbers, but for a niche area they are a quite healthy citation rate. Many articles published aren\u2019t cited at all, and here at least one work of his has over 100 citations.\n\nAdditionally if we scan down that right side column we see some names we might recognize -- the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and another PLOS article.\n\nKeep in mind that we are looking for expertise in the area of the claim. These are great credentials for talking about obesity. They are not great credentials for talking about opiate addiction. But right now we care about obesity, so that's OK.\n\nBy point of comparison we can look at a publication in Europhysics News that attacks the standard view of the 9\/11 World Trade Center collapse. We see this represented in this story on popular alternative news and conspiracy site AnonHQ:\n\n\"\"\n\nThe journal cited is Europhysics News, and when we look it up in Google we find no impact factor at all. In fact, a short investigation of the journal reveals it is not a peer-reviewed journal, but a magazine associated with the European Physics Society. The author here is either lying, or does not understand the difference between a scientific journal and an scientific organization\u2019s magazine.\n\nSo much for the source. But what about the authors? Do they have a variety of papers on the mathematical modelling of building demolitions?\n\nIf you punch the names into Google Scholar you\u2019ll find that at least one of the authors does have some modelling experience on architectural stresses, although most of his published work was from years ago:\n\n\"\"\n\nWhat to make of this? It\u2019s fair to say that the article here was not peer-reviewed and shouldn\u2019t be treated as a substantial contribution to the body of research on the 9\/11 collapse. The headline of the blog article that brought us here is wrong, as is their claim that a European Scientific Journal concluded 9\/11 was a controlled demolition. That\u2019s flat out false.\n\nBut it\u2019s worthwhile to note that some of the people writing this paper do have some expertise in a related field. We\u2019re left with that question of \u201cWhat does generally mean?\u201d in the phrase \u201cExperts generally agree on X.\u201d\n\nWhat should we do with this article? Well, it\u2019s an article published in a non-peer-reviewed journal by an experts who published a number of other respected articles (though quite a long time ago, in some cases). To an expert, that definitely could be interesting. To a novice looking for the majority and significant minority views of the field, it\u2019s probably not the best source.<\/p>","rendered":"

Not all, or even most, expertise is academic. But when the expertise cited is academic, scholarly publications by the researcher can go a long way to establishing their position in the academic community.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s look at David Bann, who wrote the PLOS Medicine article we looked at a chapter ago. To do that we go to Google Scholar (not the general Google page) and type in his name:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

We see a couple things here. First, he has a history of publishing in this area of lifespan obesity patterns. At the bottom of each result we see how many times each article he is associated with is cited: these aren\u2019t amazing numbers, but for a niche area they are a quite healthy citation rate. Many articles published aren\u2019t cited at all, and here at least one work of his has over 100 citations.<\/p>\n

Additionally if we scan down that right side column we see some names we might recognize — the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and another PLOS article.<\/p>\n

Keep in mind that we are looking for expertise in the area of the claim. These are great credentials for talking about obesity. They are not great credentials for talking about opiate addiction. But right now we care about obesity, so that’s OK.<\/p>\n

By point of comparison we can look at a publication in Europhysics News that attacks the standard view of the 9\/11 World Trade Center collapse. We see this represented in this story on popular alternative news and conspiracy site AnonHQ:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The journal cited is Europhysics News, and when we look it up in Google we find no impact factor at all. In fact, a short investigation of the journal reveals it is not a peer-reviewed journal, but a magazine associated with the European Physics Society. The author here is either lying, or does not understand the difference between a scientific journal and an scientific organization\u2019s magazine.<\/p>\n

So much for the source. But what about the authors? Do they have a variety of papers on the mathematical modelling of building demolitions?<\/p>\n

If you punch the names into Google Scholar you\u2019ll find that at least one of the authors does have some modelling experience on architectural stresses, although most of his published work was from years ago:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

What to make of this? It\u2019s fair to say that the article here was not peer-reviewed and shouldn\u2019t be treated as a substantial contribution to the body of research on the 9\/11 collapse. The headline of the blog article that brought us here is wrong, as is their claim that a European Scientific Journal concluded 9\/11 was a controlled demolition. That\u2019s flat out false.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s worthwhile to note that some of the people writing this paper do have some expertise in a related field. We\u2019re left with that question of \u201cWhat does generally mean?\u201d in the phrase \u201cExperts generally agree on X.\u201d<\/p>\n

What should we do with this article? Well, it\u2019s an article published in a non-peer-reviewed journal by an experts who published a number of other respected articles (though quite a long time ago, in some cases). To an expert, that definitely could be interesting. To a novice looking for the majority and significant minority views of the field, it\u2019s probably not the best source.<\/p>\n\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t

Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
CC licensed content, Shared previously<\/div>