Google Scholar provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature. From one place, you can search across many disciplines and sources: articles, theses, books, abstracts and court opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and other web sites. Google Scholar helps you find relevant work across the world of scholarly research. Features of Google Scholar * Search diverse sources from one convenient place * Find articles, theses, books, abstracts or court opinions * Locate the complete document through your library or on the web * Learn about key scholarly literature in any area of research How are documents ranked? Google Scholar aims to rank documents the way researchers do, weighing the full text of each document, where it was published, who it was written by, as well as how often and how recently it has been cited in other scholarly literature. * Publishers - Include your publications in Google Scholar * Librarians - Help patrons discover your library''s resources

This dataset tracks annual overall school rank from 2012 to 2023 for Independent Scholar

Ranking of the top Spanish female researchers according to their public profile in Google Scholar with data from the end of June 2024.GS, ORCID and RoR identifiers are provided when available

This table lists 38 journals in library and archival sciences, regarding their H-index (as from Google Metrics) and italian evaluation agency ranking.It updates 2016 and 2017 data, at Marchitelli, Andrea (2016): Library journals ranking. figshare.https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3487001.v2 and at Marchitelli, Andrea (2017): Library journals ranking. figshare.https://figshare.com/articles/Library_journals_ranking_2017/5188057/1

This dataset tracks annual overall school rank from 2018 to 2023 for Scholar Plus Online Learning

The dataset contains bibliographic information about scientific articles published by researchers from Norwegian research organizations and is an enhanced subset of data from the Cristin database. Cristin (current research information system in Norway) is a database with bibliographic records of all research articles with an Norwegian affiliation with a publicly funded research institution in Norway. The subset is limited to metadata about journal articles reported in the period 2013-2021 (186,621 records), and further limited to information of relevance for the study (see below). Article metadata are enhanced with open access status by several sources, particularly unpaywall, DOAJ and hybrid-information in case an article is part of a publish-and-read-deal.

Subset analysis of scholarly output by academic rank and credentials.

This dataset tracks annual overall school rank from 2015 to 2023 for Scholar Academy

Ranking researchers citedness profiles in Google Scholar of Dutch Universities collected at the beginning of July 2015

This dataset was created to compare and evaluate the Semantic Scholar recommendation service and Open Research Knowledge Graph (ORKG) similar papers recommendation service based on Elastic Search. The dataset includes 30 random ORKG comparisons, each of them is provided with 50 similar papers recommended by Semantic Scholar and 50 papers recommended by Elastic Search, including 10 most relevant papers that were manually labeled.

Dataset columns:

• Comparison resource ID: the identifier of the ORKG comparison resource
• Elastic search score: the relevancy score provided by Elastic Search
• Curated score: papers that are the most relevant to the comparison were manually labeled as "1"
• ES DOI: digital object identifier of the paper, recommended by Elastic Search
• ES Title: title of the paper, recommended by Elastic Search
• ES Abstract: abstract of the paper, recommended by Elastic Search
• Semantic scholar rank: the relevancy rank provided by Semantic Scholar
• SS DOI: digital object identifier of the paper, recommended by Semantic Scholar
• SS Title: title of the paper, recommended by Semantic Scholar
• SS Abstract: abstract of the paper, recommended by Semantic Scholar

Evaluation results:

Average precision (P@k) and recall (R@k) for Semantic Scholar results:

• P@50 = 0.11; R@50 = 0.54
• P@40 = 0.13; R@40 = 0.50
• P@30 = 0.16; R@30 = 0.48
• P@20 = 0.20; R@20 = 0.40
• P@10 = 0.29; R@10 = 0.29

Average precision (P@k) and recall (R@k) for Elastic Search results:

• P@50 = 0.20; R@50 = 1.00
• P@40 = 0.25; R@40 = 0.98
• P@30 = 0.32; R@30 = 0.97
• P@20 = 0.46; R@20 = 0.92
• P@10 = 0.63; R@10 = 0.63

List of Top Disciplines of Teaching and Learning Excellence Through Scholarship sorted by citations.

We report the results of a survey of international relations (IR) scholars on the use of an increasingly common policy designed to close recognition gaps in IR: gender balance in citation (GBC) statements. GBC statements remind and encourage authors submitting work to peer-reviewed outlets to consider the gender balance among the works they cite. We find that these policies enjoyed wide support among IR scholars in our sample countries soon after journals began instituting the policies, but women were more supportive than men of the policies. We also report the results of a question-order experiment that allows us to study how raising awareness of gender gaps in the IR discipline affects the proportion of women that scholars list among the most influential IR scholars in the last 20 years. The effects of exposure to the gender treatment vary, however, by respondents’ gender and whether respondents teach in the United States. The treatment effects were much larger for women than for men in the United States, but the reverse was true outside the United States.

Traffic analytics, rankings, and competitive metrics for scholar.google.com as of September 2025

List of Top Disciplines of Transformations: the Journal of Inclusive Scholarship and Pedagogy sorted by citations.

Citation metrics are widely used and misused. We have created a publicly available database of top-cited scientists that provides standardized information on citations, h-index, co-authorship adjusted hm-index, citations to papers in different authorship positions and a composite indicator (c-score). Separate data are shown for career-long and, separately, for single recent year impact. Metrics with and without self-citations and ratio of citations to citing papers are given. Scientists are classified into 22 scientific fields and 174 sub-fields according to the standard Science-Metrix classification. Field- and subfield-specific percentiles are also provided for all scientists with at least 5 papers. Career-long data are updated to end-of-2022 and single recent year data pertain to citations received during calendar year 2022. The selection is based on the top 100,000 scientists by c-score (with and without self-citations) or a percentile rank of 2% or above in the sub-field. This version (6) is based on the October 1, 2023 snapshot from Scopus, updated to end of citation year 2022. This work uses Scopus data provided by Elsevier through ICSR Lab (https://www.elsevier.com/icsr/icsrlab). Calculations were performed using all Scopus author profiles as of October 1, 2023. If an author is not on the list it is simply because the composite indicator value was not high enough to appear on the list. It does not mean that the author does not do good work.

PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT THE DATABASE HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN AN ARCHIVAL FORM AND WILL NOT BE CHANGED. The published version reflects Scopus author profiles at the time of calculation. We thus advise authors to ensure that their Scopus profiles are accurate. REQUESTS FOR CORRECIONS OF THE SCOPUS DATA (INCLUDING CORRECTIONS IN AFFILIATIONS) SHOULD NOT BE SENT TO US. They should be sent directly to Scopus, preferably by use of the Scopus to ORCID feedback wizard (https://orcid.scopusfeedback.com/) so that the correct data can be used in any future annual updates of the citation indicator databases.

The c-score focuses on impact (citations) rather than productivity (number of publications) and it also incorporates information on co-authorship and author positions (single, first, last author). If you have additional questions, please read the 3 associated PLoS Biology papers that explain the development, validation and use of these metrics and databases. (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002501, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000384 and https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000918).

Finally, we alert users that all citation metrics have limitations and their use should be tempered and judicious. For more reading, we refer to the Leiden manifesto: https://www.nature.com/articles/520429a

This dataset tracks annual overall school rank from 2019 to 2023 for Kipp Scholar Academy

Spearman rank-correlation between the various indices computed from the Nobel prize winners data set.

This dataset tracks annual overall school rank from 2016 to 2023 for Lumen Scholar Institute

This dataset contains the list of articles resulting from the Google Scholar search “graph based author name disambiguation” published after 1/1/2021. The list is provided for reproducibility of the survey article “Graph-based Methods for Author Name Disambiguation: A Survey” and it was obtained using the following Python script available at https://github.com/WittmannF/sort-google-scholar:$ python sortgs.py --kw “graph based author name disambiguation” --startyear 2021The command returned the CSV file that contains the first 94 publications matching the query (articles with corrupted metadata have been excluded), each with metadata about Title, Number of Citations, and Rank. The CSV contains a column that specified which articles have been eventually selected for the survey.

Overall journal rankings, which are generated with sample articles in different research fields, are commonly used to measure the research productivity of academic economists. In this article, we investigate a growing concern in the profession that the use of the overall journal rankings to evaluate scholars’ relative research productivity may exhibit a downward bias toward researchers in some specialty fields if their respective field journals are under-ranked in the overall journals rankings. To address this concern, we constructed new journal rankings based on the intellectual influence of research in 8 specialty fields using a sample consisting of 26,401 articles published across 60 economics journals from 1998 to 2007. We made various comparisons between the newly constructed journal rankings in specialty fields and the traditional overall journal ranking. Our results show that the overall journal ranking provides a considerably good mapping for the article quality in specialty fields. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.