SEforRA: A Bibliometrics-ready Academic Digital Library Search Engine Alternative


Naturally, not all researchers can develop their own software to search for academic publications from digital libraries. Nevertheless, at several stages of their research, they will need to search digital libraries for relevant scientific publications and bibliometric information. There are typically two approaches used by researchers to search for scientific publications: (i) using Google Scholar search, or (ii) using publication metadata available from several sources, such as CrossRef and publishers. However, in developing countries like Indonesia, neither option provided users with complete information, since (i) Google Scholar does not provide bibliometric details, and (ii) complete bibliometric information from other sources is often not available due to incomplete data (e.g., CrossRef) or the necessity to pay a subscription fee (e.g., Springer and Elsevier). The development of Search Engine for Research Articles (SEforRA) is a solution to this issue which provides researchers with bibliometricready publication metadata. SEforRA extracts and processes data from CrossRef, publishers, and other sources to provide an integrated platform for researchers to search and retrieve publication metadata, which is ready to use further in their research.

Keywords: search engine for research articles, academic search engines, text data mining, bibliometrics

[1] Wong, C. Y. (2019). A Century of Scientific Publication: Towards a Theorization of Growth Behavior and Research-Orientation. Scientometrics, vol. 119, issue 1, pp. 357–377.

[2] Nordtveit, B. H. (2019). Scholarly Publication as Scientific Knowledge Production: Vision of the Editors Versus Review by Peers. Comparative Education Review, vol. 63, issue 3, pp. 309–314.

[3] Leeder, S. (2019). The IJE and the Volatile World of Academic Publication. International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 48, issue 2, pp. 323–331.

[4] Attyé, A. (2019). Data Sharing Improves Scientific Publication: Example of the “Hydrops Initiative”. European Radiology, vol. 29, issue 4, pp. 1959–1960.

[5] Li, K., Rollins, J. and Yan, E. (2018). Web of Science Use in Published Research and Review Papers 1997–2017: A Selective, Dynamic, Cross-domain, Content-based Analysis. Scientometrics, vol. 115, issue 1, pp. 1–20.

[6] Ellegaard, O. and Wallin, J. A. (2015). The Bibliometric Analysis of Scholarly Production: How Great is the Impact? Scientometrics, vol. 105, issue 3, pp. 1809–1831.

[7] Walters, W. H. (2016). Information Sources and Indicators for the Assessment of Journal Reputation and Impact. Reference Librarian, vol. 57, issue 1, pp. 13–22.

[8] Cavacini, A. (2015). What is the Best Satabase for Computer Science Journal Articles? Scientometrics, vol. 102, issue 3, pp. 2059–2071.

[9] Lezama-Nicolás, R., et al. (2018). A Bibliometric Method for Assessing Technological Maturity: The Case of Additive Manufacturing. Scientometrics, vol. 117, issue 3, pp. 1425–1452.

[10] Park, I. and Yoon, B. (2018). Identifying Promising Research Frontiers of Pattern Recognition through Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 10, issue 11.

[11] Wong, D. (2018). VOSviewer. Technical Services Quarterly, vol. 35, issue 2, pp. 219–220.

[12] Lammey, R. (2019). How Publishers Can Work with Crossref on Data Citation. Science Editing, vol. 6, issue 2, pp. 166–170.

[13] Pentz, E. (2019). CrossRef: The Missing Link. College & Research Libraries News, vol. 62, issue 2, pp. 206–228.

[14] Fairhurst, V. (2018). The International Reach of Crossref. Science Editing, vol. 5, issue 1, pp. 62–65.

[15] Harzing, A. W. (2019). Two New Kids on the Block: How do Crossref and Dimensions Compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science?. Scientometrics, vol. 120, issue 1, pp. 341–349.

[16] Aujla, H., et al. (2019). The Semantic Librarian: A Search Engine Built from Vector-Space Models of Semantics. Behavior Research Methods.

[17] Meddings, K. (2017). REST API: Give and Get Metadata that’s Open and Useful. Crossref.

[18] Rochim, A. F., Muis, A. and Sari, R. F. (2018). Improving Fairness of H-index: RA-index. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology, vol. 38, issue 6, pp. 378–386.

[19] Cann, D. (2019). The Other H-index: the Hyperbole Index. Journal of Materials Science, vol. 54, issue 18, pp. 11757–11758.

[20] Jorgensen, M. (2019). Relationships between Project Size, Agile Practices, and Successful Software Development: Results and Analysis. IEEE Software, vol. 36, issue 2, pp. 39–43.

[21] Rawat, S., Goyal, N. and Ram, M. (2017). Software Reliability Growth Modeling for Agile Software Development. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, vol. 27, issue 4, pp. 777–783.

[22] Ebert, C. and Paasivaara, M. (2017). Scaling Agile. IEEE Software, vol. 34, issue 6, pp. 98–103.

[23] Meyer, B. (2018). Making Sense of Agile Methods. IEEE Software, vol. 35, issue 2, pp. 91–94.

[24] Surendra, N. C. and Nazir, S. (2019). Creating “Informating” Systems using Agile Development Practices: An Action Research Study. European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 00(00), pp. 1–17.

[25] Cram, W. A. and Marabelli, M. (2018). Have your Cake and Eat it Too? Simultaneously Pursuing the Knowledge-sharing Benefits of Agile and Traditional Development Approaches. Information and Management, vol. 55, issue 3, pp. 322–339.

[26] Dingsoeyr, T., Falessi, D. and Power, K. (2019). Agile Development at Scale: The Next Frontier. IEEE Software, vol. 36, issue 2, pp. 30–38.

[27] Allen, M. W. and Merrill, M. D. (2018). SAM and Pebble-in-the-Pond: Two Alternatives to the ADDIE Model. In R. A. Reiser and J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technologies. Pearson, pp. 31–41.

[28] Richard-Foy, J., Barais, O. and Jézéquel, J. M. (2013). Efficient High-level Abstractions for Web Programming. Presented at the 12th International Conference on Generative Programming: Concepts and Experiences, pp. 53–60.

[29] Allen, M. W. (2018). The Successive Approximation Model (SAM): A Closer Look. In Robert A. Reiser and J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technologies (4th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc., pp. 42–51.

[30] van Eck, N. J. and Waltman, L. (2010). Software Survey: VOSviewer, A Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics, vol. 84, issue 2, pp. 523–538.

[31] van Eck, N. J. and Waltman, L. (2019). VOSviewer Manual: Manual for VOSviewer version 1.6.12. Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University.

[32] Gusenbauer, M. (2019). Google Scholar to Overshadow them all? Comparing the Sizes of 12 Academic Search Engines and Bibliographic Databases. Scientometrics, vol. 118, issue 1

[33] Castelvecchi, D. (2018). Google Unveils Search Engine for Open Data. Nature, vol. 561, issue 7722, pp. 161–162.

[34] Van Noorden, R. (2018). Science Search Engine Links Papers to Grants and Patents. Nature.

[35] Thelwall, M. (2018). Dimensions: A Competitor to Scopus and the Web of Science? Journal of Informetrics, vol. 12, issue 2, pp. 430–435.