<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: google scholar</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'google scholar'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22google+scholar%22&t=%22google+scholar%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:20:27 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Create your own Google Scholar RSS feed</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3671933&amp;cid=t_116767_132_f&amp;fid=35006&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fnsaunders.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F06%2F17%2Fcreate-your-own-google-scholar-rss-feed%2F</link>
            <description>Google Scholar is a useful tool and now has a dedicated blog. The first post is dedicated to email alerts.
It&amp;#8217;s unimaginable, in 2010, that an alert service would not provide an RSS feed, so I can only assume that this feature will appear &amp;#8220;in due course&amp;#8221;. In the meantime, a quick Google search for create rss feed from website lead me to 7 Tools To Make An RSS Feed Of Any Website. I quickly tested them all and I agree with the author of the article: Feed43 is the winner.
The process for creating a Google Scholar feed is a little complex. Here&amp;#8217;s my first attempt.
Update: interesting FriendFeed thread, where people point out that (a) scraping Google Scholar is quite likely to fail and (b) this is not the same as an alert, since results are not ordered by date.

1. Ente...</description>
            <author>What You're Doing Is Rather Desperate</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3671933</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:01:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3671933</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>PubMed versus Google Scholar for Retrieving Evidence</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3644720&amp;cid=t_116767_86_f&amp;fid=38272&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Flaikaspoetnik.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F06%2F08%2Fpubmed-versus-google-scholar-for-retrieving-evidence%2F</link>
            <description>A while ago a resident in dermatology told me she got many hits out of PubMed, but zero results out of TRIP. It appeared she had used the same search for both databases: alopecea areata and diphenciprone (a drug with a lot of synonyms). Searching TRIP for alopecea (in the title) only, we found a Cochrane [...] (Source: Laika's MedLibLog)</description>
            <author>Laika's MedLibLog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3644720</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:45:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3644720</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Google Scholar Search Performance: Comparative Recall and Precision</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2222287&amp;cid=t_116767_86_f&amp;fid=34461&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigicmb.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F02%2Fgoogle-scholar-search-performance.html</link>
            <description>Image via WikipediaJust spotted: Google Scholar Search Performance: Comparative Recall and Precision William H. Walters
 portal: Libraries and the Academy, Volume 9, Number 1, January 2009, pp. 5-24 (Article) DOI: 10.1353/pla.0.0034 
Abstract:This paper presents a comparative evaluation of Google Scholar and 11 other bibliographic databases (Academic Search Elite, AgeLine, ArticleFirst, EconLit, GEOBASE, MEDLINE, PAIS International, POPLINE, Social Sciences Abstracts, Social Sciences Citation Index, and SocINDEX), focusing on search performance within the multidisciplinary field of later-life migration. The results of simple keyword searches are evaluated with reference to a set of 155 relevant articles identified in advance. In terms of both recall and precision, Google Scholar performs b...</description>
            <author>DigiCMB</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2222287</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:55:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2222287</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Nodalpoint is now indexed by Google Scholar</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2902913&amp;cid=t_116767_132_f&amp;fid=35001&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.nodalpoint.org%2F2009%2F02%2F20%2Fnodalpoint_is_now_indexed_by_google_scholar</link>
            <description>Nodalpoint has been obviously indexed by Google for a long time now, but did you know it is also indexed and counted by Google Scholar too? See Mistaken Identity: Google thinks Iâ€™m Maurice Wilkins for details...
read more (Source: nodalpoint.org - A bioinformatics weblog)</description>
            <author>nodalpoint.org - A bioinformatics weblog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2902913</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:48:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2902913</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Science publication and assessment:  our national debate</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1169595&amp;cid=t_116767_132_f&amp;fid=35006&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fnsaunders.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F01%2F23%2Fscience-communication-our-national-debate%2F</link>
            <description>The Australian, our national newspaper, is usually not my preferred read but does have a good higher education section. Our new government has just thrown out an assessment exercise named the Research Quality Framework (RQF) - it will be replaced with something very similar, no doubt. Disturbingly, Thomson Scientific were given a licensing agreement by the previous government to supply the data for the RQF.
Imagine my delight to find newspaper articles discussing the shortcomings of impact factors, the rise of Google Scholar and the open-source software of Anne-Wil Harzing:

Research Review Heats Up
&amp;#8220;&amp;#8230;commercial rivals such as Elsevier&amp;#8217;s Scopus database and software built on Google Scholar have entered the market while the rise of research assessment linked to promotion a...</description>
            <author>What You're Doing Is Rather Desperate</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1169595</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:35:37 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1169595</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Quotes from the neighbors (October 2007)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1147432&amp;cid=t_116767_107_f&amp;fid=36698&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fminingdrugs.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F10%2Fquotes-from-neighbors-october-2007.html</link>
            <description>==Taverna Workshop, Day 1 Update (chem-bla-ics)==The second part of the morning session featured a presentation by Sirisha Gollapudi which spoke about mining biological graphs, such as protein-protein interaction networks and metabolic pathways. Patterns detection for nodes with only one edge, and cycles etc, using Taverna. An example data she worked on is the Palsson human metabolism (doi:10.1073/pnas.0610772104); she mentioned that this metabolite data set contains cocaine :) Neil Chue Hong finished with an introduction on the OMII-UK which is co-host of this meeting.After lunch Mark Wilkinson introduced BioMoby, which we actually use in Wageningen already. I have tried to use jMoby to set up services based on the CDK, but failed sofar. Will talk with Mark on that. Next was my presentati...</description>
            <author>Mining Drug Space</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1147432</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:39:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1147432</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Open access, peer-reviewed journal: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=587942&amp;cid=t_116767_113_f&amp;fid=34898&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fbillkosloskymd.typepad.com%2Fwirelessdoc%2F2007%2F05%2Fopen_access_pee.html</link>
            <description>BioMed Central | BMC Medical Informatics and Decision MakingBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making is an open access
journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in
information management, systems and technology in healthcare and the
study of medical decision making. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
(ISSN 1472-6947) is indexed/tracked/covered by PubMed, MEDLINE, CAS,
Scopus, EMBASE, Thomson Scientific (ISI) and Google Scholar.Technorati Tags: Medical Informatics, journal, BioMed Central, PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar (Source: Wireless Doc)</description>
            <author>Wireless Doc</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=587942</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 15:58:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">587942</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

