{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0381451009723261, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.575, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The patent crisis and how the courts can solve it

countries; it is in the sciences where journal articles come from multiple countries. At another point, the author mixes up editorial board members with journal article referees. They are not always synonymous. She claims that Ghoshal’s book, Managing Across Borders, is not to be found in a Web of Science citation search, when it is. She claims that most conference papers and working papers ‘eventually find their way to published articles’, which is debatable. Finally, Harzing does not mention that others have worked on improving her software to clean up some of the problems that Google Scholar raises; for example, duplication. The service is called POP Clean, and is available at http://cleanpop.ifris.org. The book has some typos. ‘Thomson’ (as in Thomson Reuters, the company that owns Web of Science), ‘fare’ and ‘advise’ are mis-spelt in places, and a stray question mark appeared in one chapter title. There is also some repetition of material scattered about the book. Overall, can the book be recommended? If you wish to use Google Scholar, for all its faults, in bibliometric analyses, then this book is a good guide to software that can be used to help you; but bearing in mind the adage ‘garbage in, garbage out’, I would not yet use Google Scholar for such purposes.