In Reply to Ben Bolker’s Post "Google Scholar (still) sucks"
[This article was first published on theBioBucket*, and kindly contributed to R-bloggers]. (You can report issue about the content on this page here)
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.
Replying to Ben Bolker’s post Google Scholar (still) sucks:Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.
Ben,
thanks for illustrating the issue in your post!
The main purpose of my function GScholarScraper is to retrieve titles – just because this is the best we can get from Google Scholar. Abstracts are truncated and thus shouldn’t be used for meta-analysis. Also titles are truncated, as you said, and there is no way around. Though, this is not as often and severe as with abstracts, i.e.
The CSV is optional, the df with word frequencies and the word cloud are always returned – for any other output one can easily add some appropriate lines to the script.
My opinion:
My function is good for a quick summary and illustration of a query-result.
Tony’s function is evidently better if you want to pull all fields of a given query (authors, titles, abstracts,..)
I wonder if people came across ROpenSci? I guess that might be very interesting in this context!
Last remark: Of course, a Google Scholar API would resolve all our problems in this regard..
Best,
Kay
To leave a comment for the author, please follow the link and comment on their blog: theBioBucket*.
R-bloggers.com offers daily e-mail updates about R news and tutorials about learning R and many other topics. Click here if you're looking to post or find an R/data-science job.
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.