Abstract— This paper aims to analyze the number of readers from the published articles of 100 Indonesian researchers in Mendeley reference management software. The list of Indonesian scientists is obtained from the webometrics ranking of scientists. We used the Application Programming Interface (API) of Mendeley to count the number of readers for each article in Mendeley and combine it with Google Scholar citation using the scrap method. We processed ten mostly cited articles that are indexed in the first page of the Google Scholar for each designated scientist. Furthermore, we used the Pearson method to analyze the correlation of the Mendeley readers count and the Google Scholar citation. The results show that they are correlated with a value of 0.266 according to the method of Pearson with N = 1000. Furthermore we found that many online Indonesian journals have no Digital Object Identifier (DOI) yet. Our evaluation of the publication results of 100 Indonesian researchers shows that authors who upload their scientific work on Mendeley, have higher citation number in Google Scholar, because their papers are widely available on the Internet.
Category Archives: oa.google_scholar
Could There Be Some Viable Challengers to Google Scholar on the Horizon? | Absolutely Maybe
by Hilda Bastian
In 2019, I wrote a pair of posts about the risks of our reliance on Google Scholar (GS), and search engine alternatives for systematic reviewers. Back then, a thorough assessment of 28 searchable collections of academic records found only 2 that were large enough to come anywhere close to GS’ scope – the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) and WorldWideScience (WWS). And of those, only Microsoft indexed citations so you could search those as well. What’s more, MAG’s corpus was open, so you could download results – which you can’t in GS – or even the whole lot to use in creating something else.
But Microsoft canned Academic Search at the end of 2021. The exercise may have largely been a testing ground for the company’s “AI” search aspirations. Now it’s started a chatbot-driven arms race between its search engine, Bing, and Google. Meanwhile, Google’s cutting jobs and their search engine already seemed to be circling the drain, over-stuffed with ads and Google-surfaced content. It’s even easier to picture GS joining the long list of products scrapped by Google.
I rely on GS on a lot, and all the talk of threats to Google financial standing is making me nervous. So it was definitely time to see whether there are any viable, free-to-use, alternatives spanning all fields now – or even on the distant horizon. And I’ve ended up a lot more relieved – even optimistic – than I expected to be!
Measuring Metadata Impacts: Books Discoverability in Google Scholar – The Scholarly Kitchen
“The scholarly publishing community talks a LOT about metadata and the need for high-quality, interoperable, and machine-readable descriptors of the content we disseminate. However, as we’ve reflected on previously in the Kitchen, despite well-established information standards (e.g., persistent identifiers), our industry lacks a shared framework to measure the value and impact of the metadata we produce.
In 2021, we embarked on a Crossref-sponsored study designed to measure how metadata impacts end-user experiences and contributes to the successful discovery of academic and research literature via the mainstream web. Specifically, we set out to learn if scholarly books with DOIs (and associated metadata) were more easily found in Google Scholar than those without DOIs.
Initial results indicated that DOIs have an indirect influence on the discoverability of scholarly books in Google Scholar — however, we found no direct linkage between book DOIs and the quality of Google Scholar indexing or users’ ability to access the full text via search-result links. Although Google Scholar claims to not use DOI metadata in its search index, the results of our mixed-methods study of 100+ books (from 20 publishers) demonstrate that books with DOIs are generally more discoverable than those without DOIs….”
Recalibrating the Scope of Scholarly Publishing: A Modest Step in a Vast Decolonization Process | Quantitative Science Studies | MIT Press
Abstract: By analyzing 25,671 journals largely absent from common journal counts, as well as Web of Science and Scopus, this study demonstrates that scholarly communication is more of a global endeavor than is commonly credited. These journals, employing the open source publishing platform Open Journal Systems (OJS), have published 5.8 million items; they are in 136 countries, with 79.9% in the Global South and 84.2% following the OA diamond model (charging neither reader nor author). A substantial proportion of journals operate in more than one language (48.3%), with research published in a total of 60 languages (led by English, Indonesian, Spanish, and Portuguese). The journals are distributed across the social sciences (45.9%), STEM (40.3%), and the humanities (13.8%). For all their geographic, linguistic, and disciplinary diversity, 1.2% are indexed in the Web of Science and 5.7% in Scopus. On the other hand, 1.0% are found in Cabells Predatory Reports, while 1.4% show up in Beall’s questionable list. This paper seeks to both contribute and historically situate expanded scale and diversity of scholarly publishing in the hope that this recognition may assist humankind in taking full advantage of what is increasingly a global research enterprise.
Google Scholar – Platforming the Scholarly Economy | Internet Policy Review
Abstract: Google Scholar has become an important player in the scholarly economy. Whereas typical academic publishers sell bibliometrics, analytics and ranking products, Alphabet, through Google Scholar, provides “free” tools for academic search and scholarly evaluation that have made it central to academic practice. Leveraging political imperatives for open access publishing, Google Scholar has managed to intermediate data flows between researchers, research managers and repositories, and built its system of citation counting into a unit of value that coordinates the scholarly economy. At the same time, Google Scholar’s user-friendly but opaque tools undermine certain academic norms, especially around academic autonomy and the academy’s capacity to understand how it evaluates itself.
5 ways Google Scholar helps you get access to what you discovered | Aaron Tay’s Musings about librarianship
“If there is one academic discovery search that dominates it is Google Scholar.
Much has been said about it’s merits , particularly over library discovery systems but even the best discovery service will not be popular if it does not help the user access the full text whether open access or based on the user’s own unique circumstances (typically institutional affiliation).
In this blog post, I will list 5 different ways Google Scholar helps a user get to full text. The last two were methods I recently discovered and it seems may not be very well known even by academic librarians.
1. Free full text tagged [PDF] or [HTML]
2. Library Links programme
3. Library search via Open WorldCat Search
4. The print/or non-electronic holdings option…
5. Subscriber links programme …”
Opinion: Pros and Cons of Google vs. Subscription Databases
“During my time overseeing the library services department of a large school district, we found our subscription databases were generally a well-kept secret. The lack of trained school librarians available to teach these resources was part of the issue. But Google was ubiquitous, as was Wikipedia, and they became de facto research sources for students, despite their limitations for such a role.
Google has its place for students and researchers (I used it for this article), as does Google Scholar (which I also used). But for students, subscription databases should also play a central research role, beginning with age-appropriate sources for elementary kids – like National Geographic – and moving up to “Gale in Context” for middle school students, and more scholarly articles for high schoolers from sources like ABC-CLIO….”
TRANSPARENT RANKING: All Repositories (August 2021) | Ranking Web of Repositories
During the last months, we realized the indexing of records of several open access repositories by Google Scholar is not as complete as previously without a clear reason. From the experience of a few cases, it looks that GS penalizes error in the metadata descriptions, so it is important to the affected repositories to check their level of indexing and to try to identify potential problems. Please, consider the following Indexing GS guidelines https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html https://www.or2015.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/or-2015-anurag-google-scholar.pdf and the following material: Exposing Repository Content to Google Scholar A few suggestions for improving the web visibility of the contents of your institutional OA repository “Altmetrics of the Open Access Institutional Repositories: A Webometrics Approach” As a service for the OA community we are providing five lists of repositories (all (institutional+subject), institutional, portals, data, and CRIS) with the raw numbers of records in GS for their web domains (site:xxx.yyy.zz excluding citations and patents) ranked by decreasing number of items as collected during the second week of AUGUST 2021. The list is still incomplete as we are still adding new repositories.
Google Scholar Blog: 2021 Scholar Metrics Released
“Scholar Metrics provide an easy way for authors to quickly gauge the visibility and influence of recent articles in scholarly publications. Today, we are releasing the 2021 version of Scholar Metrics. This release covers articles published in 2016–2020 and includes citations from all articles that were indexed in Google Scholar as of July 2020….”
Google Scholar – Public Access Tracker, Open Access, and eScholarship – Library Matters
“A few months ago, Google Scholar launched a Public Access Tracker. This is a tool embedded in Google Scholar profiles that shows if a researcher’s work is compliant with their funding agencies’ open access mandates: …
A few things to note:
Not every source is picked up
i.e. Researchers may have made works open but Google Scholar didn’t find it.
Not all funded research is captured
Uploading a PDF to your Google Drive (as Google recommends) would NOT meet open access requirements of funding agencies.
Some of the sources Google Scholar recognizes as ‘open’ are not in fact (e.g. ResearchGate).
Although the tracker is not without its bugs (see above), it has spurred some researchers to make more of their work open access….”
Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: Which is best for me? | Impact of Social Sciences
“Being able to find, assess and place new research within a field of knowledge, is integral to any research project. For social scientists this process is increasingly likely to take place on Google Scholar, closely followed by traditional scholarly databases. In this post, Alberto Martín-Martín, Enrique Orduna-Malea , Mike Thelwall, Emilio Delgado-López-Cózar, analyse the relative coverage of the three main research databases, Google Scholar, Web of Science and Scopus, finding significant divergences in the social sciences and humanities and suggest that researchers face a trade-off when using different databases: between more comprehensive, but disorderly systems and orderly, but limited systems….”
HighWire at 25: Anurag Acharya (Google Scholar) looks back – Highwire Press
“In the early 2000s, my role at Google was running web indexing: the system that crawls the web, making pages and content discoverable and accessible through search. Nowadays, there’s an assumption that looking for something via Google searches everything, but that wasn’t the case in the early days. Part of my role was to expand the index by reaching out to many different types of organizations – government, business, publishers – to make sure their web sites were included in the index.
A key group among these was scholarly publishers hosting journals and conferences. Having grown up on a university campus, scholarly articles had been all around and I wanted to make sure that they were as easy to find as everything else.
As a part of this, I reached out to HighWire to explore the possibility of indexing the hosted journals. I remember our first call in the Fall of 2002 with John Sack, Todd McGee and several others. A few quick calls, a couple of meetings in person and we were off….”
A fairer way to compare researchers at any career stage and in any discipline using open-access citation data
Abstract: The pursuit of simple, yet fair, unbiased, and objective measures of researcher performance has occupied bibliometricians and the research community as a whole for decades. However, despite the diversity of available metrics, most are either complex to calculate or not readily applied in the most common assessment exercises (e.g., grant assessment, job applications). The ubiquity of metrics like the h-index (h papers with at least h citations) and its time-corrected variant, the m-quotient (h-index ÷ number of years publishing) therefore reflect the ease of use rather than their capacity to differentiate researchers fairly among disciplines, career stage, or gender. We address this problem here by defining an easily calculated index based on publicly available citation data (Google Scholar) that corrects for most biases and allows assessors to compare researchers at any stage of their career and from any discipline on the same scale. Our ??-index violates fewer statistical assumptions relative to other metrics when comparing groups of researchers, and can be easily modified to remove inherent gender biases in citation data. We demonstrate the utility of the ??-index using a sample of 480 researchers with Google Scholar profiles, stratified evenly into eight disciplines (archaeology, chemistry, ecology, evolution and development, geology, microbiology, ophthalmology, palaeontology), three career stages (early, mid-, late-career), and two genders. We advocate the use of the??-index whenever assessors must compare research performance among researchers of different backgrounds, but emphasise that no single index should be used exclusively to rank researcher capability.
Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations | SpringerLink
Abstract: New sources of citation data have recently become available, such as Microsoft Academic, Dimensions, and the OpenCitations Index of CrossRef open DOI-to-DOI citations (COCI). Although these have been compared to the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS), Scopus, or Google Scholar, there is no systematic evidence of their differences across subject categories. In response, this paper investigates 3,073,351 citations found by these six data sources to 2,515 English-language highly-cited documents published in 2006 from 252 subject categories, expanding and updating the largest previous study. Google Scholar found 88% of all citations, many of which were not found by the other sources, and nearly all citations found by the remaining sources (89–94%). A similar pattern held within most subject categories. Microsoft Academic is the second largest overall (60% of all citations), including 82% of Scopus citations and 86% of WoS citations. In most categories, Microsoft Academic found more citations than Scopus and WoS (182 and 223 subject categories, respectively), but had coverage gaps in some areas, such as Physics and some Humanities categories. After Scopus, Dimensions is fourth largest (54% of all citations), including 84% of Scopus citations and 88% of WoS citations. It found more citations than Scopus in 36 categories, more than WoS in 185, and displays some coverage gaps, especially in the Humanities. Following WoS, COCI is the smallest, with 28% of all citations. Google Scholar is still the most comprehensive source. In many subject categories Microsoft Academic and Dimensions are good alternatives to Scopus and WoS in terms of coverage.
A belated look at Campus Activated Subscriber Access (CASA) or “off-campus access links” in Google Scholar | Musings about librarianship
About a little-known Google Scholar option letting institutional users access subscription content from off-campus.