Google Scholar: sempre útil - Wikipedia

Google Scholar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Scholar

[Minha página no GS: http://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=OhRky2MAAAAJ]

Google Scholar

Type of site	Bibliographic database
Owner	Google
Website	scholar.google.com
Registration	Optional
Launched	November 20, 2004; 14 years ago
Current status	Active

Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. Released in beta in November 2004, the Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online academic journals and books, conference papers, theses and dissertations, preprints, abstracts, technical reports, and other scholarly literature, including court opinions and patents.^[1]While Google does not publish the size of Google Scholar's database, scientometric researchers estimated it to contain roughly 389 million documents including articles, citations and patents making it the world's largest academic search engine in January 2018.^[2] Previously, the size was estimated at 160 million documents as of May 2014.^[3] Earlier statistical estimate published in PLOS ONE using a Mark and recapture method estimated approximately 80–90% coverage of all articles published in English with an estimate of 100 million.^[4] This estimate also determined how many documents were freely available on the web.

Google Scholar has been criticized for not vetting journals and including predatory journals in its index.^[5]

History

Google Scholar arose out of a discussion between Alex Verstak and Anurag Acharya,^[6] both of whom were then working on building Google's main web index.^[7][8] Their goal was to "make the world's problem solvers 10% more efficient"^[9] by allowing easier and more accurate access to scientific knowledge. This goal is reflected in the Google Scholar's advertising slogan – "Stand on the shoulders of giants" – taken from a quote by holy Bernard of Chartres and is a nod to the scholars who have contributed to their fields over the centuries, providing the foundation for new intellectual achievements.

Scholar has gained a range of features over time. In 2006, a citation importing feature was implemented supporting bibliography managers (such as RefWorks, RefMan, EndNote, and BibTeX). In 2007, Acharya announced that Google Scholar had started a program to digitize and host journal articles in agreement with their publishers, an effort separate from Google Books, whose scans of older journals do not include the metadata required for identifying specific articles in specific issues.^[10] In 2011, Google removed Scholar from the toolbars on its search pages,^[11]making it both less easily accessible and less discoverable for users not already aware of its existence. Around this period, sites with similar features such as CiteSeer, Scirus, and Microsoft Windows Live Academic search were developed. Some of these are now defunct; although in 2016, Microsoft launched a new competitor, Microsoft Academic.

A major enhancement was rolled out in 2012, with the possibility for individual scholars to create personal "Scholar Citations profiles", public author profiles that are editable by authors themselves.^[12] Individuals, logging on through a Google account with a bona fide address usually linked to an academic institution, can now create their own page giving their fields of interest and citations. Google Scholar automatically calculates and displays the individual's total citation count, h-index, and i10-index. According to Google, "three quarters of Scholar search results pages [...] show links to the authors' public profiles" as of August 2014.^[12]

A feature introduced in November 2013 allows logged-in users to save search results into the "Google Scholar library", a personal collection which the user can search separately and organize by tags.^[13] A metrics feature now supports viewing the impact of academic journals,^[14] and whole fields of science, via the "metrics" button. This reveals the top journals in a field of interest, and the articles generating these journal's impact can also be accessed.

Features and specifications

Google Scholar allows users to search for digital or physical copies of articles, whether online or in libraries.^[15] It indexes "full-text journal articles, technical reports, preprints, theses, books, and other documents, including selected Web pages that are deemed to be 'scholarly.'"^[16] Because many of Google Scholar's search results link to commercial journal articles, most people will be able to access only an abstract and the citation details of an article, and have to pay a fee to access the entire article.^[16] The most relevant results for the searched keywords will be listed first, in order of the author's ranking, the number of references that are linked to it and their relevance to other scholarly literature, and the ranking of the publication that the journal appears in.^[17]

Using its "group of" feature, it shows the available links to journal articles. In the 2005 version, this feature provided a link to both subscription-access versions of an article and to free full-text versions of articles; for most of 2006, it provided links to only the publishers' versions. Since December 2006, it has provided links to both published versions and major open access repositories, but still does not cover those posted on individual faculty web pages;^{[citation needed]} access to such self-archivednon-subscription versions is now provided by a link to Google, where one can find such open access articles.

Through its "cited by" feature, Google Scholar provides access to abstracts of articles that have cited the article being viewed.^[18] It is this feature in particular that provides the citation indexing previously only found in CiteSeer, Scopus, and Web of Science. Through its "Related articles" feature, Google Scholar presents a list of closely related articles, ranked primarily by how similar these articles are to the original result, but also taking into account the relevance of each paper.^[19]

Google Scholar's legal database of US cases is extensive. Users can search and read published opinions of US state appellate and supreme court cases since 1950, US federal district, appellate, tax, and bankruptcy courts since 1923 and US Supreme Court cases since 1791.^[18] Google Scholar embeds clickable citation links within the case and the How Cited tab allows lawyers to research prior case law and the subsequent citations to the court decision.^[20] The Google Scholar Legal Content Star Paginator extension inserts Westlaw and LexisNexis style page numbers in line with the text of the case.^[21]

Ranking algorithm

While most academic databases and search engines allow users to select one factor (e.g. relevance, citation counts, or publication date) to rank results, Google Scholar ranks results with a combined ranking algorithm in a "way researchers do, weighing the full text of each article, the author, the publication in which the article appears, and how often the piece has been cited in other scholarly literature".^[17] Research has shown that Google Scholar puts high weight especially on citation counts^[22] and words included in a document's title.^[23] As a consequence, the first search results are often highly cited articles.

Limitations and criticism

This article is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this article to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available.  (October 2017)

• Quality – Some searchers consider Google Scholar of comparable quality and utility to commercial databases.^[24][25] The reviews recognize that its "cited by" feature in particular poses serious competition to Scopus and Web of Science. An early study, from 2007, limited to the biomedical field, found citation information in Google Scholar to be "sometimes inadequate, and less often updated".^[26] The coverage of Google Scholar may vary by discipline compared to other general databases.^[27]
• Lack of screening for quality – Google Scholar strives to include as many journals as possible, including predatory journals, which "have polluted the global scientific record with pseudo-science, a record that Google Scholar dutifully and perhaps blindly includes in its central index."^[28]
• Coverage – Google Scholar does not publish a list of journals crawled or publishers included, and the frequency of its updates is uncertain. Bibliometricevidence suggests Google Scholar's coverage of the sciences and social sciences is competitive with other academic databases; however as of 2017, Scholar's coverage of the arts and humanities has not been investigated empirically and Scholar's utility for disciplines in these fields remains ambiguous.^[29] Especially early on, some publishers did not allow Scholar to crawl their journals. Elsevierjournals have been included since mid-2007, when Elsevier began to make most of its ScienceDirect content available to Google Scholar and Google's web search.^[30] As of February 2008, the absentees still included the most recent years of the American Chemical Society journals. It is, therefore, impossible to know how current or exhaustive searches are in Google Scholar, although a recent study^[4] estimates that Google Scholar can find almost 90% (approximately 100 million) of all scholarly documents on the Web written in English. Large-scale longitudinal studies have found between 40–60% of scientific articles are available in full text via Google Scholar links.^[31]
• Matthew effect – Google Scholar puts high weight on citation counts in its ranking algorithm and therefore is being criticized for strengthening the Matthew effect;^[22] as highly cited papers appear in top positions they gain more citations while new papers hardly appear in top positions and therefore get less attention by the users of Google Scholar and hence fewer citations.
• Google Scholar effect – It is a phenomenon when some researchers pick and cite works appearing in the top results on Google Scholar regardless of their contribution to the citing publication because they automatically assume these works’ credibility and believe that editors, reviewers, and readers expect to see these citations.^[32]
• Incorrect field detection – Google Scholar has problems identifying publications on the arXiv preprint server correctly. Interpunctuation characters in titles produce wrong search results, and authors are assigned to wrong papers, which leads to erroneous additional search results. Some search results are even given without any comprehensible reason.^[33][34]
• Vulnerability to spam – Google Scholar is vulnerable to spam.^[35][36]Researchers from the University of California, Berkeley and Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg demonstrated that citation counts on Google Scholar can be manipulated and complete non-sense articles created with SCIgen were indexed from Google Scholar.^[37] They concluded that citation counts from Google Scholar should only be used with care especially when used to calculate performance metrics such as the h-index or impact factor. Google Scholar started computing an h-index in 2012 with the advent of individual Scholar pages. Several downstream packages like Harzing's Publish or Perish also use its data.^[38] The practicality of manipulating h-index calculators by spoofingGoogle Scholar was demonstrated in 2010 by Cyril Labbe from Joseph Fourier University, who managed to rank "Ike Antkare" ahead of Albert Einstein by means of a large set of SCIgen-produced documents citing each other (effectively an academic link farm).^[39]
• Inability to shepardize case law – As of 2010, Google Scholar was not able to shepardize case law, as Lexis can.^[40]

Search engine optimization for Google Scholar

Search engine optimization (SEO) for traditional web search engines such as Googlehas been popular for many years. For several years, SEO has also been applied to academic search engines such as Google Scholar.^[41] SEO for academic articles is also called "academic search engine optimization" (ASEO) and defined as "the creation, publication, and modification of scholarly literature in a way that makes it easier for academic search engines to both crawl it and index it".^[41] ASEO has been adopted by organizations such as Elsevier,^[42] OpenScience,^[43] Mendeley,^[44] and SAGE Publishing^[45] to optimize their articles' rankings in Google Scholar. ASEO has negatives.^[37]

See also

• List of academic databases and search engines
• Microsoft Academic Search
• Paperpile
• ResearchGate
• Science Citation Index

References

1.  "Search Tips: Content Coverage". Google Scholar. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
2.  Gusenbauer, Michael (2018-11-10). "Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases". Scientometrics. 118: 177–214. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5. ISSN 0138-9130.
3.  Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín-Martín, A., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2015). Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 104(3), 931–49. ArXiv
4. ^ ^a b Trend Watch (2014) Nature 509(7501), 405 – discussing Madian Khabsa and C Lee Giles (2014) The Number of Scholarly Documents on the Public Web, PLOS ONE 9, e93949.
5.  Kolata, Gina (30 October 2017). "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 November 2017.
6.  Giles, J. (2005). "Science in the web age: Start your engines". Nature. 438(7068): 554–55. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..554G. doi:10.1038/438554a. PMID 16319857.
7.  Hughes, Tracey (December 2006). "An interview with Anurag Acharya, Google Scholar lead engineer". Google Librarian Central.
8.  Assisi, Francis C. (3 January 2005). "Anurag Acharya Helped Google's Scholarly Leap". INDOlink. Archived from the original on 2011-06-08. Retrieved 2007-04-19.
9.  Steven Levy (2015) The gentleman who made Scholar. "Back channel" on Medium.
10.  Quint, Barbara (August 27, 2007). "Changes at Google Scholar: A Conversation With Anurag Acharya". Information Today.
11.  Madrigal, Alexis C. (3 April 2012). "20 Services Google Thinks Are More Important Than Google Scholar". Atlantic.
12. ^ ^a b Alex Verstak: "Fresh Look of Scholar Profiles". Google Scholar Blog, August 21, 2014
13.  James Connor: "Google Scholar Library". Google Scholar Blog, November 19, 2013
14.  "International Journal of Internet Science – Google Scholar Citations". Retrieved 2014-08-22.
15.  Google Scholar Library Links
16. ^ ^a b Vine, Rita (January 2006). "Google Scholar". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 94 (1): 97–99. PMC 1324783.
17. ^ ^a b "About Google Scholar". Retrieved 2010-07-29.
18. ^ ^a b "Google Scholar Help".
19.  Official Google Blog: Exploring the scholarly neighborhood
20.  Dreiling, Geri (May 11, 2011). "How to Use Google Scholar for Legal Research". Lawyer Tech Review.
21.  "Google Scholar Legal Content Star Paginator". Retrieved 2011-06-06.
22. ^ ^a b Jöran Beel and Bela Gipp. Google Scholar's Ranking Algorithm: An Introductory Overview. In Birger Larsen and Jacqueline Leta, editors, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI'09), vol. 1, pp. 230–41, Rio de Janeiro, July 2009. International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. ISSN 2175-1935.
23.  Beel, J.; Gipp, B. (2009). Google Scholar's ranking algorithm: The impact of citation counts (An empirical study). 2009 Third International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science. pp. 439–46. doi:10.1109/RCIS.2009.5089308. ISBN 978-1-4244-2864-9.
24.  Bauer, Kathleen; Bakkalbasi, Nisa (September 2005). "An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment". D-Lib Magazine. 11 (9). doi:10.1045/september2005-bauer.
25.  Kulkarni, A. V.; Aziz, B.; Shams, I.; Busse, J. W. (2009). "Comparisons of Citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for Articles Published in General Medical Journals". JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 302 (10): 1092–96. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1307. PMID 19738094.
26.  Falagas, M. E.; Pitsouni, E. I.; Malietzis, G. A.; Pappas, G. (2007). "Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses". The FASEB Journal. 22 (2): 338–42. doi:10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF. PMID 17884971.
27.  Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M. (2007). "Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis". Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 57 (6): 1055–65. doi:10.1002/asi.20584.
28.  Beall, Jeffrey (November 2014). "Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science". Scholarly Open Access. Archived from the original on 2014-11-07. Retrieved 2014-11-10.
29.  Fagan, Jody (2017). "An evidence-based review of academic web search engines, 2014–2016: Implications for librarians' practice and research agenda". Information Technology and Libraries. 36: 7–47.
30.  Brantley, Peter (3 July 2007). "Science Direct-ly into Google". O'Reilly Radar. Archived from the original on 21 April 2008.
31.  Martín-Martín, Alberto; Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Ayllón, Juan Manuel; Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio (2014-10-30). "Does Google Scholar contain all highly cited documents (1950–2013)?". arXiv:1410.8464 [cs.DL].
32.  Serenko, A.; Dumay, J. (2015). "Citation classics published in knowledge management journals. Part II: Studying research trends and discovering the Google Scholar Effect" (PDF). Journal of Knowledge Management. 19 (6): 1335–55. doi:10.1108/JKM-02-2015-0086.
33.  Jacso, Peter (24 September 2009). "Google Scholar's Ghost Authors, Lost Authors, and Other Problems". Library Journal. Archived from the original on 7 June 2011.
34.  Péter Jacsó (2010). "Metadata mega mess in Google Scholar". Online Information Review. 34: 175–91. doi:10.1108/14684521011024191.
35.  On the Robustness of Google Scholar against Spam
36.  Scholarly Open Access – Did A Romanian Researcher Successfully Game Google Scholar to Raise his Citation Count? Archived 2015-01-22 at the Wayback Machine
37. ^ ^a b Beel, Joeran; Gipp, Bela (December 2010). "Academic search engine spam and google scholar's resilience against it". Journal of Electronic Publishing. 13 (3). doi:10.3998/3336451.0013.305.
38.  "Publish or Perish". Anne-Wil Harzing.com. Retrieved 2013-06-15.
39.  Labbe, Cyril (2010). "Ike Antkare one of the great stars in the scientific firmament" (PDF). Laboratoire d'Informatique de Grenoble RR-LIG-2008 (technical report). Joseph Fourier University.
40.  Oliver Benn (March 9, 2010). "Is Google Scholar a Worthy Adversary?". Law Technology News.
41. ^ ^a b Beel, Jöran; Gipp, Bela; Wilde, Erik (2010). "Academic Search Engine Optimization (ASEO)". Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 41 (2): 176–90. doi:10.3138/jsp.41.2.176.
42.  "Get found – optimize your research articles for search engines".
43.  "Why and how should you optimize academic articles for search engines?".
44.  "Academic SEO – Market (And Publish) or Perish". 2010-11-29.
45.  "Help Readers Find Your Article". 2015-05-19.

Further reading

• Jensenius, F., Htun, M., Samuels, D., Singer, D., Lawrence, A., & Chwe, M. (2018). "The Benefits and Pitfalls of Google Scholar." PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(4), 820-824.

Os luso-venezuelanos: emagrecendo? - Portugal reconhece o governo Guaidó (Mundo Português)

Portugal tem dezenas de milhares de cidadãos morando na Venezuela, emigrados durante os anos estagnantes durante o salazarismo, e vários outros durante os anos caóticos do "Leningrado" lusitano.
O governo Maduro vai cair, isso é inevitável. Só falta saber se será sem derramamento de sangue...

Governo português: comunidade luso-venezuelana é a “preocupação número 1”

Mundo Português, 4 Fevereiro, 2019

https://www.mundoportugues.pt/governo-portugues-assegura-que-comunidade-luso-venezuelana-e-a-preocupacao-numero-1/

Portugal juntou-se, na manhã de hoje, a outros países europeus que também reconheceram o presidente do parlamento venezuelano, Juan Guaidó, como Presidente interino da Venezuela, após expirar o prazo de oito dias para que o presidente Nicolás Maduro convocasse eleições presidenciais.
Pelo Reino Unido, o ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros britânico, Jeremy Hunt, explicou que “Nicolas Maduro não organizou eleições presidenciais no prazo de oito dias que nós fixámos”. “Por isso, o Reino Unido e os seus aliados reconhecem a partir de agora @jguaido como Presidente constitucional interino até que possam ser organizadas eleições credíveis”, escreveu o chefe da diplomacia britânica numa mensagem na rede social ‘Twitter’.
Pelo Governo sueco, a ministra dos Negócios Estrangeiros da Suécia, Margot Wallström, à televisão pública SVT, que “nesta situação, apoiamos e consideramos Guaidó como o Presidente interino legítimo”.
Já o Governo da França considera que o presidente do parlamento venezuelano, Juan Guaidó, “tem legitimidade para convocar eleições presidenciais”, como afirmou o ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros francês, Jean-Yves Le Drian.
Em Espanha, o primeiro-ministro Pedro Sánchez anunciou que o país reconhece o presidente da Assembleia Nacional venezuelana, Juan Guaidó, como presidente interino da Venezuela.
Ao fim da manhã também a Alemanha divulgava o reconhecimento do líder da Assembleia Nacional venezuelana como Presidente interino daquele país, pedindo-lhe que prepare “rapidamente” novas eleições.
Guaidó “é o Presidente interino legítimo do ponto de vista alemão e também para muitos países europeus”, indicou a chanceler alemã Angela Merkel, numa reunião, em Tóquio (Japão) com o seu homólogo japonês.
A Dinamarca já havia reconhecido ontem anterior o presidente da Assembleia Nacional numa mensagem do seu ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros, o ultraliberal Anders Samuelsen, publicada na rede social ‘Twitter’.
Juan Guaidó proclamou-se Presidente interino da Venezuela a 23 de janeiro, depois de considerar que Nicolás Maduro usurpou o poder. Após a proclamação, Guaidó foi prontamente reconhecido pelo Presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump.

“O Governo Português, em linha com a posição da União Europeia, apelou no dia 26 de janeiro de 2019 à realização na Venezuela de eleições presidenciais livres, transparentes e credíveis, de acordo com as práticas democráticas internacionalmente aceites e no respeito da Constituição da Venezuela, para que possa finalmente ser ultrapassado o vazio político resultante da ilegitimidade do processo eleitoral de maio de 2018 e o consequente impasse político e profunda crise social.
O prazo para que essas eleições fossem convocadas terminou ontem, dia 3 de fevereiro, sem que o Senhor Nicolás Maduro tenha demonstrado qualquer abertura nesse sentido. 
Em consequência, e atendendo à importância de que o Povo Venezuelano se possa expressar livremente sobre os destinos do seu País, o Governo Português tomou a decisão de reconhecer e apoiar a legitimidade do Presidente da Assembleia Nacional Venezuelana, Senhor Juan Guaidó, como Presidente interino da República Bolivariana da Venezuela, com o encargo de convocar e organizar eleições presidenciais livres, inclusivas e conformes às práticas democráticas internacionalmente aceites, nos termos previstos pela Constituição do País.
O Governo Português considera que o Senhor Juan Guaidó possui a necessária legitimidade para assegurar uma transição pacífica, inclusiva e democrática, que permitirá evitar uma escalada da violência no país e restituir aos Venezuelanos o poder de decidir livremente o seu destino, com vista a conduzir o seu País a um caminho de paz e prosperidade.
O Governo Português mantém-se fortemente empenhado em contribuir para esta dinâmica construtiva, designadamente no quadro do recém-estabelecido Grupo de Contacto Internacional para a Venezuela.
Esta decisão é aquela que o Governo Português entende melhor defender os interesses da vasta Comunidade Luso-Venezuelana, que fez da Venezuela o seu lar e que comunga profundamente dos anseios do País que também é seu.”

Mendeley: um excelente instrumento de pesquisa

Eu já conheço o Mendeley há muitos anos, mas nunca tinha usado, simplesmente por falta de tempo e de vontade para aprender as normas e técnicas de funcionamento (sou arredio a ler manuais).
Agora resolvi instalar o programa e ver o que se poderia obter como informação útil para meus trabalhos de pesquisa.
Sendo assim, coloquei um termo de busca – Economic History – na janela de pesquisa e esperei o resultado.
Deu o que vai abaixo. Acho que está mais do que satisfatório...
Só preciso encontrar tempo para pesquisar.
Depois de terminar uma resenha de livro – Juca Paranhos: o barão do Rio Branco, de L. C. Villafañe G. Santos – de 13 páginas às 3h50 da manhã, eu me prometi a mim mesmo dormir cedo nesta quinta (que já passou). Agora já são 01h51 da sexta feira e ainda estou aqui.
Bem, vejamos o que apareceu em Mendeley sobre Economic History:

Springer, S. (2007). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Journal of Peace Research. http://doi.org/10.1177/002234330704400117

Godden, C. (2015). Economic History. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.62109-8

World Economic Forum. (2017). The Global Risks Report 2017 12th Edition. The Global Competitiveness and Risks Team.

Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior. http://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1027

Nunn, N. (2011). The Importance of History for Economic Development. SSRN.

Millward, R., & North, D. C. (1983). Structure and Change in Economic History. The Economic Journal. http://doi.org/10.2307/2232785

Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). The Creative Response in Economic History. The Journal of Economic History. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700054279

Baerwald, F. (1937). History of Economic Thought. Thought. http://doi.org/10.5840/thought193712333

Clark, G. (2009). Economic History Association. Source: The Journal of Economic History. http://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2797(73)90016-1

Moser, P. (2012). Patents and Innovation: Evidence from Economic History. SSRN.

Rees., J. F. (1930). GENERAL ECONOMIC HISTORY. History. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-229X.1930.tb00609.x

Delhi, N., Reviews, B., Ratnagar, S., Trade, T. W., & Civilization, H. (1982). Indian Economic & Social History Review. History Review. http://doi.org/10.1210/jcem-57-2-393

Atkinson, A. B., Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2011). Top Incomes in the Long Run of History. Source Journal of Economic Literature Journal of Economic Journal of Economic Literature. http://doi.org/10.1257/jel.49.1.3

Simon, H. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. History. http://doi.org/citeulike-article-id:1204470

Taalbi, J. (2017). What drives innovation? Evidence from economic history. Research Policy. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.007

Arndt, H. W. (1981). Economic Development- A Semantic History. Economic Development: A Semantic History. http://doi.org/10.1086/451266

Pearce, D. (2011). An Intellectual History of Environmental Economics. SSRN.

Autor, D. H. (2015). Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives. http://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.3

Bilde, P. G., Bøgh, B., Handberg, S., Højte, J. M., Nieling, J., Smekalova, T., & Stolba, V. (2008). Institutions. Archaeological Reports. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608400000867

Chandler, A. D. (1992). Organizational Capabilities and the Economic History of the Industrial Enterprise. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. http://doi.org/10.1257/jep.6.3.79

Persson, K. G. (2013). An Economic History of Europe. Integration and Deregulation. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

THE ECONOMIC HISTORY REVIEW. (1934). The Economic History Review. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0289.1934.tb00857.x

Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007

Relations, F., Affairs, F., Press, C., History, T., & Society, S. (1995). Development and. English. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.092704.171256

Tabellini, G. (2010). Culture and institutions: Economic development in the regions of Europe. Journal of the European Economic Association. http://doi.org/10.1162/jeea_a_00001

Academia.edu: caracteristicas e criticas - Wikipedia

Academia.edu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia.edu

[Minha página: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida/]

Academia.edu is an American social networking website for academics.^[4][5] 

The platform can be used to share papers, monitor their impact, and follow the research in a particular field. It was launched in September 2008,^[6] with 39 million unique visitors per month as of January 2019 and over 21 million uploaded texts.^[7] Academia.edu was founded by Richard Price, who raised $600,000 from Spark Ventures, HOWZAT Partners, Brent Hoberman, and others.^[8]

Usage

The website allows its users to create a profile, upload their work(s), select areas of interests and then the user can browse the networks of people with similar interests among the almost, as of December 2017, 58 million users from around the world.^[9]

Academia.edu's competitors include ResearchGate, Google Scholar and Mendeley.^[10] Compared to ResearchGate, in 2016 Academia.edu reportedly had more registered users (about 34 million versus 11 million^[11]) and higher web traffic, but ResearchGate was substantially larger in terms of active usage by researchers.^[10][12]The fact that ResearchGate restricts its user accounts to people at recognized institutions and published researchers may explain the disparity in active usage, as a high percentage of the accounts on Academia.edu are lapsed or inactive.^[10][12]

Open science

Academia.edu claims it supports the open science or open access movements and, in particular, instant distribution of research, and a peer-review system that occurs alongside distribution, instead of prior to it.^[13] Accordingly, the company stated its opposition to the proposed (since withdrawn) 2011 U.S. Research Works Act, which would have prevented open-access mandates in the U.S.^[14]

However, Academia.edu is not an open access repository and is not recommended as a way to pursue green open access by Peter Suber and experts, who instead invite researchers to use field-specific repositories or general-purpose repositories like Zenodo.^[5][15]

Domain name

Academia.edu is not a university or institution for higher learning and so under current standards it would not qualify for the ".edu" top-level domain. However, the domain name "Academia.edu" was registered in 1999, prior to the regulations requiring .edu domain names to be held solely by accredited post-secondary institutions. All .edu domain names registered prior to 2001 were grandfathered in, even if not an accredited post-secondary institution.^[16][17]

A critic, Kathleen Fitzpatrick, the Director of Scholarly Communication at the Modern Language Association, said she finds the use of the ".edu" domain name by Academia.edu to be "extremely problematic", since the domain name might mislead users into thinking the site is part of an accredited educational institution rather than a for-profit company.^[17]

On its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company uses the legal name Academia Inc.^[18]

Financial history

In November 2011, Academia.edu raised $4.5 million from Spark Capital and True Ventures.^[8] Prior to that, it had raised $2.2 million from Spark Ventures and a range of angel investors including Mark Shuttleworth, Thomas Lehrman, and Rupert Pennant-Rea.^[8] In September 2013, the company raised $11.1 million from Khosla Ventures, True Ventures, Spark Ventures, Spark Capital and Rupert Pennant-Ream,^[19] bringing its total equity funding to $17.7 million.^[18][20]

Reception

Many academics are happy about the increased publicity their research can garner due to the website, but some are worried about the effect on research and science in general, especially since Academia.edu refuses to make its business model public.^[4]TechCrunch remarked that Academia.edu gives academics a "powerful, efficient way to distribute their research"^[21][22] and that it "will let researchers keep tabs on how many people are reading their articles with specialized analytics tools", and "also does very well in Google search results".^[21] Academia.edu seems to reflect a combination of social networking norms and academic norms.^[23]

Months after its acquisition of Academia.edu rival Mendeley, Elsevier sent thousands of takedown notices to Academia.edu, a practice that has since ceased, following widespread complaint by academics, according to Academia.edu founder and chief executive Richard Price.^[24][25]

Criticism

In early 2016, some users reported having received e-mails from Academia.edu where they were asked if they would be interested in paying a fee to have their papers recommended by the website's editors.^[26] This led some users to start a campaign encouraging users to cancel their Academia.edu accounts.^[27]

Other criticisms include the fact that Academia.edu uses a "vendor lock-in" model: "It's up to Academia.edu to decide what you can and can't do with the information you've given them, and they're not likely to make it easy for alternative methods to access".^[27] This is in reference to the fact that, although papers can be read by non-users, a free account is needed in order to download papers: "you need to be logged in to do most of the useful things on the site (even as a casual reader)".^[27]

A registered user, in order to use advanced search on the site and several other functions, needs to subscribe to premium ($100- per year, or $10- per month) as explained on the site when using basic title search. 

In December 2016, Academia.edu announced new premium features that includes data analytics on work and the professional rank of the viewers,^[28] which have also received criticism.^[9][29][30]

References

1.  "Our Mission". Academia.edu. Retrieved 2018-12-15.
2.  "academia.edu Traffic Statistics". Retrieved 21 January 2018.
3.  Academia.edu. "Hiring". Retrieved 2018-12-15.
4. ^ ^a b Some academics remain skeptical of Academia.edu
5. ^ ^a b Fortney, Katie; Gonder, Justin (2015-12-01). "A social networking site is not an open access repository". OSC. Retrieved 2016-07-22.
6.  Cutler, Kim-Mai. "Academia.Edu Overhauls Profiles As The Onus Falls On Researchers To Manage Their Personal Brands". Techcrunch. Retrieved 2012-10-19.
7.  Academia.edu. "About". Retrieved 2019-01-26.
8. ^ ^a b c "Academia.edu | CrunchBase Profile". Crunchbase.com. Retrieved 2012-02-22.
9. ^ ^a b Bond, Sarah. "Dear Scholars, Delete Your Account At Academia.Edu". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-01-26.
10. ^ ^a b c Matthews, David (7 April 2016). "Do academic social networks share academics' interests?". Times Higher Education. Archived from the original on 2016-04-17. Retrieved 2016-04-22.
11.  Satariano, Adam (15 November 2016). "Bill Gates-Backed Research Network Targets Advertising Revenue". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 2016-11-30. Retrieved 2016-11-29.
12. ^ ^a b Van Noorden, Richard (13 August 2014). "Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network". Nature. 512 (7513): 126–129. doi:10.1038/512126a. PMID 25119221. Archived from the original on 2014-10-26. Retrieved 2014-11-06.Quote 1: ResearchGate is certainly well-known [...] More than 88% of scientists and engineers said that they were aware of it. Quote 2: "They do send you a lot of spam," [Billie Swalla] says Quote 3: [...] regularly sending out automated e-mails that profess to come from colleagues active on the site Quote 4: "I think it is a disgraceful kind of marketing and I am choosing not to use their service because of that", [Lars Arvestad] says Quote 5: "I've met basically no academics in my field with a favourable view of ResearchGate", says Daniel MacArthur Quote 6: Some of the apparent profiles on the site are not owned by real people, but are created automatically – and incompletely – by scraping details of people's affiliations, publication records and PDFs Quote 7: That annoys researchers who do not want to be on the site, and who feel that the pages misrepresent them – especially when they discover that ResearchGate will not take down the pages when asked. Quote 8: [Madisch] will not say how many of [the papers available on ResearchGate] have been automatically scraped from freely accessible places elsewhere.
13.  Richard Price (2012-02-05). "The Future of Peer Review". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2012-02-22.
14.  Richard Price (2012-02-15). "The Dangerous "Research Works Act"". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2012-02-22.
15.  Peter Suber (2016). "Open Access book §10 self help".
16.  "edu Policy Information". Net.educause.edu. 2001-10-29. Archived from the original on 2013-04-20. Retrieved 2012-02-22.
17. ^ ^a b McKenna, Laura (17 December 2015). "The Convoluted Profits of Academic Publishing". The Atlantic.
18. ^ ^a b "A social networking site is not an open access repository". University of California Office of Scholarly Communication. Retrieved 7 July 2016.
19.  "About Academia.edu". Academia.edu. Retrieved 23 March 2014.
20.  "Academia.edu". Crunchbase. Retrieved 7 July 2016.
21. ^ ^a b "Academia.edu Raises $4.5 Million To Help Researchers Share Their Scholarly Papers". TechCrunch. 2011-11-30. Retrieved 2012-02-22.
22.  "Academia.edu – $4.5M in Funding, 3M Unique Monthly Visitors – Can They Change Science Publication?". Singularity Hub. 2011-12-11. Archived from the original on 2013-04-20. Retrieved 2012-02-22.
23.  Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K. (2014). "Academia.edu: Social network or Academic Network?". Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65 (4): 721. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.308.6099. doi:10.1002/asi.23038.Preprint
24.  Parr, Chris (June 12, 2014). "Sharing is a way of life for millions on Academia.edu". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 14 September 2015.
25.  Howard, Jennifer (December 6, 2013). "Posting Your Latest Article? You Might Have to Take It Down". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 14 September 2015.
26.  "Scholars Criticize Academia.edu Proposal to Charge Authors for Recommendations". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 2016-01-29. Retrieved 2017-01-26.
27. ^ ^a b c "Should you #DeleteAcademiaEdu? On the role of commercial services in scholarly communication". Impact of Social Sciences. 2016-02-01. Retrieved 2017-01-26.
28.  Team, The Academia edu (2016-12-20). "How do people find your papers? Academia.edu Introduces a New Premium Feature". Medium. Retrieved 2017-01-26.
29.  "Academia, Not Edu". Planned Obsolescence. 2015-10-26. Retrieved 2017-01-26.
30.  "The end of Academia.edu: how business takes over, again". diggit magazine. 2017-04-26. Retrieved 2017-05-02.

External links

• Official website