I found this link from google news, which cited a study in the BMJ that basically states 'Searching with Google may help doctors to formulate a differential diagnosis in difficult diagnostic cases.'
That's great, so does this also mean that using google for research is also legit?
Apparently, it has been for while, I just didn't know it.
I used to use only pubmed earlier, but then I was led to scholar.google.com.
The difference apparently between pubmed and scholar.google is that while pubmed searches only abstracts, scholar.google will search the full text of an article and then present its results. However, pubmed wins because of its PMID feature that assigns a unique number to each article and its ease of use with Endnote and 'related links'. My experience is that Scholar.google is useful when you want to look for detailed methods used, or if the information you are looking for happens to be hidden somewhere in an article but doesnt appear in the abstract.
I was once by a senior student (this was in '04) that if you mention that you used google to search for articles, you will be looked up on as a joke.. (he was the one who introduced me to scholar.google, but then gave this above 'warning' as well). A quick run of the words 'scholar google' on pubmed gave several articles in which cited 'Google Scholar' in their methods, the earliest one going down to March '05.
So far, I have never been asked where I came up with a certain article, if asked , I will mention scholar.google.com, in addition to Pubmed. Because now I found an article on pubmed, extolling the benefits of google scholar, and it was published in Nature News. You can't get more legit than that. :)
On an other note: There just HAD to be a desi involved in it. :)