May 12, 2024Open Access

Why EXACTLY is Google Scholar bad for evidence synthesis, systematic reviews?

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Let's be clear here, Google Scholar is ill designed for use for systematic reviews . I am not trying to argue otherwise. (Obligatory warning, I am not a real systematic review librarian) But why exactly?

Read Full Paperexternally

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Aaron Tay (Sun,) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e6a888b6db64358762b2f5 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.59350/e1f2p-39w75

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

1Can Google Scholar Serve as a Sufficient Source for Systematic Reviews? Reconsidering the Need for Multiple Database Searches2026
2Can Google Scholar Serve as a Sufficient Source for Systematic Reviews? Reconsidering the Need for Multiple Database Searches2026
3Reassessing the Role of Google Scholar in PRISMA-Informed Systematic Reviews Through a Critical Analysis of Influential Research Identifying Its Limitations and Empirical Evidence2026
4Redefining searching in non-medical sciences systematic reviews: The ascendance of Google Scholar as the primary database2024 · 10 citations
5How learning evidence synthesis (systematic reviews etc) changed the way I search and some thoughts about semantic search as a complement search technique2024

Bookmark

View Full Paper