Comparing Google Scholar and Conventional Databases in Supporting Research on Academic Women’s Experiences of Bullying

Authors

  • Roshana Kamran Department of English, Iqra University, Karachi, Pakistan
  • Edgar A. Burns School of Social Sciences, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47540/ijqr.v5i1.1937

Keywords:

Academic Databases, Article Retrieval, Google Scholar, Literature Research, Search Engines

Abstract

The search engine effectiveness of Google Scholar retrieval was compared with a cluster of well-known academic databases in conducting a scoping review for a project about women being bullied and harassed by academic colleagues. The literature research found broad similarities between the number of relevant articles retrieved from the group of academic databases and the results retrieved by Google Scholar. There were, however, three qualitative differences in how results were achieved that reduced the benefits of using Google’s free and single search engine: mixed relevance of results, the necessity for filtering non-relevant returned items, and the need for additional search practices. Learning how to achieve these results suggests a combined approach may still be the most convenient option for thorough literature searching at present. Even before Google Scholar’s limitations are addressed, however, its reach, speed, and accessibility outside paywalls open new possibilities as a primary search engine to gather scholarly material for marginalized communities, voluntary human service groups, and educational institutions with limited financial resources in both developed and developing societies. The present article provides one contribution to debates about the relative practical value of academic search engine options for gathering research literature compared with Google Scholar.

References

Abdullah, I., & Malik, M. A. (2025). The friendship dilemma: An empirical analysis on the effects of academic leaders’ friendships on faculty members’ well-being. Journal of Applied Social Science, 1–19.

Abdullah, F., & Ullah, H. (2022). Lived Experiences of Women Academicians in higher education institutions of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. A Research Journal of South Asian Studies, 37(2), 323–340.

Abdur, R., Islamb, M., Hossainc, S., & Jiang, J. (2019). Exploring and learning English: An analysis of Baidu and Google Translation. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation.

Abizadehm A. (2024). Academic journals are a lucrative scam—and we’re determined to change that. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/16/academic-journal-publishers-universities-price-subscription

Alfonzo, P. (2016). Teaching Google Scholar: A practical guide for librarians. Rowman & Littlefield.

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.

Azizah, N. N., Maryanti, R., & Nandiyanto, A. B. D. (2021). How to search and manage references with a specific referencing style using Google Scholar: From step-by-step processing for users to the practical examples in the referencing education. Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 1(2), 267–294.

Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2009). Google Scholar’s ranking algorithm: The impact of citation counts (an empirical study). Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, pp. 439–446, 22–24 April, Fez, Morocco.

Boeker, M., Vach, W., & Motschall, E. (2013). Google Scholar as a replacement for systematic literature searches: Good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 1–12.

Borteye, E., Lamptey, R., White, E., & Humphrey-Ackumey, S. (2024). Knowledge and use of google educational tools by postgraduate students in a Ghanaian university. International Journal of Information Science and Management, 22(1), 1–15.

Bragazzi, N., Bacigaluppi, S., Robba, C., Nardone, R., Trinka, E., & Brigo, F. (2016). Infodemiology of status epilepticus: A systematic validation of the Google trends-based search queries. Epilepsy and Behavior, 55, 120–123.

Cai, Q. (2025). The cultural politics of artificial intelligence in China. Theory, Culture and Society, 42(3), 21–40.

Cawley, M. & Warning, W. (2016). A systematic review of pharmacists performing obstructive sleep apnea screening services. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 38, 752–760.

Chalyi, O. (2024). An evaluation of general-purpose AI chatbots: a comprehensive comparative analysis. InfoScience Trends, 1(1), 52–66.

Cohen-Almagor, R. (2013). Internet history. In R. Luppicini (Ed.), Moral, ethical, and social dilemmas in the age of technology: Theories and practice (pp.19–39). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Covolo, L., Rubinelli, S., Ceretti, E., & Gelatti, U. (2015). Internet-based direct-to-consumer genetic testing: a systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(12), e279.

Cox, A., & Mazumdar, S. (2024). Defining artificial intelligence for librarians. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 56(2), 330–340.

Falagas, M., Pitsouni, E., Malietzis, G., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342.

Gillies, J., & Cailliau, R. (2000). How the web was born: The story of the World Wide Web. New York: Oxford University Press.

Goldenfein, J., & Griffin, D. (2022). Google Scholar—Platforming the scholarly economy. Journal of Internet Regulation, 11(3), 1–34.

Green, C., & Black, A. (2025). Death by a thousand cuts: The violence of academia revealed in women’s metaphors. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 1–18.

Gusenbauer, M. (2019). Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases. Scientometrics, 118(1), 177–214.

Gusenbauer, M. (2022). Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases. Scientometrics, 127(5), 2683–2745.

Gusenbauer, M. (2024). Beyond Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: An evaluation of the backward and forward citation coverage of 59 databases' citation indices. Research Synthesis Methods, 15(5), 802-817.

Gusenbauer, M., & Gauster, S. P. (2025). How to search for literature in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A comprehensive step-by-step guide. Technical Forecasting and Social Change (212), 1–28.

Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? (‘What every researcher should know about searching—clarified concepts...’) Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181–217.

Haddaway, N., Collins, A., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015). The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLOS ONE, 10(9), 1–17.

Halevi, G., Moed, H., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2017). Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 823–834.

Harzing, A-W. (2014). A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Scientometrics, 98, 565–575.

Harzing, A., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106, 787–804.

Houshyar, M., & Sotudeh, H. (2018). A reflection on the applicability of Google Scholar as a tool for comprehensive retrieval in bibliometric research and systematic reviews. International Journal of Information Science and Management, 16(2), 1–17.

Hillis, K., Petit, M., & Jarrett, K. (2013). Google and the culture of search. London: Routledge.

Hu, C.-C., Yuadi, I., Chen, M.-H., & Huang, H.-C. (2024). Comparing the effectiveness of ChatGPT and Google Search in assisting learners to solve problems. 2024 International Conference on Consumer Electronics, Taiwan.

Ioannidis, J. (2016). The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(3), 485–514.

Kamran, R., & Burns, E. (2023). Bullying research progress review: Women academics in Pakistan’s university sector. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 11(2), 38–57.

Khlaif, Z., Mousa, A., Hattab, M., Itmazi, J., Hassan, A., Sanmugam, M., & Ayyoub, A. (2023). The potential and concerns of using AI in scientific research: ChatGPT performance evaluation. JMIR Medical Education, 9, e47049.

Kim, H. (2014). An investigation of information usefulness of Google Scholar in comparison with Web of Science. Journal of the Korean BIBLIA Society for Library and Information Science, 25(3), 215–234.

Kim, T. (2023). Application of artificial intelligence chatbots, including ChatGPT, in education, scholarly work, programming, and content generation and its prospects: a narrative review. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 20, 1–8.

Kumar, V. (2024). Top 10 academic publishers in the world, https://list.ly/list/1v7P-top-10-academic-publishers-in-the-world#google_vignette

Levine-Clark, M., & Kraus, J. (2007). Finding chemistry information using Google Scholar: A comparison with Chemical Abstracts Service. Science and Technology Libraries, 27(4), 3–17.

Liu, J. (2021). Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and DOI services: An overview. Libri, 71(4), 349–360.

López-Cózar, D., Orduna-Malea, E., & Martín-Martín, A. (2019). Google Scholar as a data source for research assessment. Springer handbook of science and technology indicators (pp. 95–127). Springer.

López-Fitzsimmons, B., & Nagra, K. (2019). Google vs. library databases: Engaging twenty-first century undergraduate students in critical thinking. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 31(4), 219–231.

Mager, A., Norocel, O., & Rogers, R. (2023). Advancing search engine studies: The evolution of Google critique and intervention. Big Data and Society, 10(2), 1–8.

Maouche, S. (2019). Google AI: Opportunities, risks, and ethical challenges. Contemporary French and Francophone Studies, 23(4), 447–455.

Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & López-Cózar, E. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177.

Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics, 126(1), 871–906.

Moore, R., Fisher, E., & Eccleston, C. (2022). Systematic reviews do not (yet) represent the ‘gold standard’ of evidence: A position paper. European Journal of pain, 26(3), 557–566.

Muchmore, M. (2024, August 15). Go beyond Google: The best alternative search engines for 2025. PCMag.

Oh, K., & Colón-Aguirre, M. (2019). A comparative study of perceptions and use of Google Scholar and academic library discovery systems. College and Research Libraries News, 80(6), 876–891.

Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J., Martín-Martín, A., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2015). Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 104(3), 931–949.

Ortega, J., & Aguillo, I. (2014). Microsoft academic search and Google Scholar citations: Comparative analysis of author profiles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1149–1156.

Paperpile. (2024). The top list of academic search engines. Paperpile Reference Management. https://paperpile.com/g/academic-search-engines/

Piasecki, J., Waligora, M., & Dranseika, V. (2017). Google Search as an additional source in systematic reviews. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 809–810.

Pranckutė, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications, 9(1), 1–59.

Prasong, M., & Eko, T. (2025). Analysis of Islamic values in the program anti-bullying in Islamic educational institutions. Journal of Islamic Education and Social Humanities, 5(3), 256–264.

PublishingState.com. (2023, 19 October). How many journal articles have been published? https://publishingstate.com/how-many-journal-articles-have-been-published/2023

Rahardja, U., Harahap, E., & Dewi, S. (2019). The strategy of enhancing article citation and H-index on SINTA to improve tertiary reputation. Telkominika: Telecommunication Computing Electronics and Control, 17(2), 683–692.

Redding, C. (2018). Google it: A history of Google.New York: Macmillan.

Rovira, C., Codina, L., Guerrero-Solé, F., & Lopezosa, C. (2019). Ranking by relevance and citation counts, a comparative study: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, WoS, and Scopus. Future Internet, 11(9), 2–21.

Shi, C., Xiao, Y., Zang, D., & Ren, H. (2025). Effectiveness of treadmill training intervention for the management of patients with stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 31(3), e70020.

Shorey, S., Chus, C., & Yap Seng, C. (2025). Turbulent academic journey of female academics: a meta-synthesis. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 29(6), 863–883.

Stirbu, S., Thirion, P., Schmitz, S., Haesbroeck, G., & Greco, N. (2015). The utility of Google Scholar when searching geographical literature: Comparison with three commercial bibliographic databases. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 322–329.

Texas A&M University. (2024). Selected AI-based literature review tools. Texas A&M University Libraries. https://tamu.libguides.com/c.php?g=1289555

Thomas, C. (2021). Academic databases. In C. Thomas (Ed.), Research methodology and scientific writing (pp. 227–261). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Tsouroufli, M. (2020). Gendered and classed performances of ‘good’ mother and academic in Greece. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 27(1): 9–24.

Van Noorden, R. (2014). Google Scholar pioneer on search engine’s future. Nature. 16269.

Varoufakis, Y. (2024). Technofeudalism. New York: Vintage.

Wagenaar, O., Gilles, A., Jacquemin, L., Van Rompaey, V., & Blom, H. (2025). Tinnitus management by improving resilience using exposure in virtual reality: A scoping review. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 1–8.

Wangsa, K., Karim, S., Gide, E., & Elkhodr, M. (2024). A systematic review and comprehensive analysis of pioneering AI chatbot models from education to healthcare: ChatGPT, Bard, Llama, Ernie and Grok. Future Internet, 16(7), 1–23.

Xie, Y., Ji, B., Liu, C., Fang, Y., Guo, T., Quan, Y., Xie, Y., & Dai, J. (2024). Exploring the application status of qualitative studies in the research area of acupuncture: A scoping review protocol. BMJ Open, 14(10), e088006.

Published

2025-07-30

How to Cite

Kamran, R., & Burns, E. A. (2025). Comparing Google Scholar and Conventional Databases in Supporting Research on Academic Women’s Experiences of Bullying. International Journal of Qualitative Research, 5(1), 60-72. https://doi.org/10.47540/ijqr.v5i1.1937

Issue

Section

Articles