treating google scholar like wikipedia? not cool

[jimmylegs]

hey check it out, you can just write a word doc or a blog post and index it on google scholar.

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as_vi ... as_sdt=1,5

APA 'citations'
Coimbra, C. G. For a New Paradigm of Medical Treatment.
Mercola, J. Celso Galli Coimbra–OABRS 11352.
Tarantino, M., & Oliveira, M. Celso Galli Coimbra–OABRS 11352.

cleanup on aisle 3:
https://scholar.google.nl/citations?use ... AAAJ&hl=en

aside re google scholar profiles, see also the impressive record of professor 'et al':
https://scholar.google.nl/citations?use ... AAAJ&hl=en
2522887 citations that is spectacular.

i am now less surprised to find this, than i would have been an hour ago

“Comments on the paper
High doses of riboflavin and the elimination of dietary red meat promote the recovery of some motor functions in Parkinson’s disease
patients. C.G. Coimbra and V.B.C. Junqueira. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, 36: 1409-1417, 2003
H.B. Ferraz1, E.A.B. Quagliato2, C.R.M. Rieder3, D.J. Silva4, H.A.G. Teive5, E.R. Barbosa6, F. Cardoso7,
J.C.P. Limongi6, J.M.F. Bezerra8, L.A.F. Andrade9, N. Allam10, R.C.P. Prado11 and V. Tumas1"

http://bit.ly/2kSl5vB

naturally i am sympathetic to the quest for nutritional solutions to chronic disease (and i've been going through the lit on PD myself in hopes of bringing some relief to a family friend), however in this case per Ferraz et al "Previous epidemiological studies with case-control methodology have failed to demonstrate any correlation between life-style or food habits and Parkinson’s disease (5-7). There is no scientific evidence correlating vitamin B2 or protein consumption and Parkinson’s disease in previous well-controlled studies (8,9) analyzing a much higher number of individuals than the 31 patients studied by Coimbra and Junqueira (1)."

bring on the rigorous study design. in the meantime, shame on you for gaming google scholar.

[jimmylegs]

seem to have spurred quite a little campaign...

[AntonioBR]

Hi Jimmy,


Well, I do not know for who was addressed this post, so I didn't answer it before.

I never used Google Scholar only Pubmed and Scielo.

However, I don't think that Coimbra is wrong. Maybe, it is not appropriate to share articles or instructions (protocol instructions [.doc]) using Google Scholar, but it is not wrong at all.

Second Google's webpage Google Scholar was designed to:
''provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature. From one place, you can search across many disciplines and sources: articles, theses, books, abstracts and court opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and other web sites. Google Scholar helps you find relevant work across the world of scholarly research.'' [1]

So, books, articles, court opinions, professional societies, online repositories, etc. They are all scholarly literature but they are not considered scientific evidence. Therefore, even Google says that it was developed to store different kinds of scholar documents.



About that Parkinson study. He published it here: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjmbr/v36n10/5318.pdf

I know that it is a weak/poor study. The results of it was reported in the 6th International Conference of Alzheimer and Parkinson Diseases, Sevilha, Spain (May 2003). Hence, there were a lot of doctors there to criticize it.

And, in 2014 he published another one: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S15 ... xt&tlng=en

There is a post about this subject: http://www.thisisms.com/forum/coimbra-h ... 27335.html


Some curiosities about Google Scholar:

Second the Michigan State University:
"1.Both Pubmed and Web of Science are human-curated databases. Google Scholar is not. This is the key to most of the differences you will find in your search results; 2. Web of Science and Google Scholar track citations, but PubMed does not; 3. Google Scholar searches full text of articles but PubMed and Web of Science search only the citation, abstract, and tagging information."[4]

Google Scholar has a place in medical libraries. It is a perfectly decent search tool for those who are looking for quick answers and for questions where the outcome has little or no impact on clinical excellence. [2]

There is another study comparing Google Scholar to Pubmed and it shows the superiority of Pubmed [3]

[1] https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/about.html
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1324783/
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20420728
[4] http://libguides.lib.msu.edu/pubmedvsgooglescholar