The google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 65, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 446-454

  López Cózar, Emilio Delgado ^a   Robinson García, Nicolás ^a   Torres Salinas, Daniel ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NAVARRA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOMETRIC; BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS; CITATION DATA; GOOGLE SCHOLAR; INDIVIDUAL LEVELS; RESEARCH COMMUNITIES; RESEARCH GROUPS; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE;

EID: 84900535264     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23056     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Aguillo, I. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91(2), 343-351.
2. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?-A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 72(2), 257-271.
3. Bartneck, C., &Kokkelmans, S. (2011). Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 87(1), 85-98.
4. Beel, J., &Gipp, B. (2010). Academic search engine spam and Google Scholar's resilience against it. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 13(3), 1-24.
5. Beel, J., Gipp, B., &Wilde, E. (2010). Academic Search Engine Optimizatio (ASEO): Optimizing scholarly literature for Google Scholar and Co. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 41(2), 176-190.
6. Brown, S., &Swan, A. (2007). Researchers' use of academic libraries and their services: A report commissioned by the Research Information Network and the Consortium of Research Libraries. Available at: http:// eprints.soton.ac.uk/263868/1/libraries-report-2007.pdf.
7. Butler, D. (2011). Computing giants launch free science metrics. Nature, 476(7358), 18. doi:10.1038/476018a
8. Cabezas-Clavijo, A., &Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2013). Google Scholar e índice h en biomedicina: la popularización de la evaluación bibliométrica. Medicina Intensiva, 37(5), 343-354.
9. Costas, R., &Bordons, M. (2007). The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 193-203.
10. Davis, P. (2012). Gaming Google Scholar Citations, made simple and easy. The Scholarly Kitchen. Available at: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/12/ 12/gaming-google-scholar-citations-made-simple-and-easy/
11. Delgado López-Cózar, E., &Cabezas-Clavijo, A. (2012). Google Scholar Metrics: an unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals. El Profesional de la Información, 21(4), 419-427.
12. Delgado López-Cózar, E., &Cabezas-Clavijo, A. (2013). Ranking journals: could Google Scholar Metrics be an alternative to Journal Citation Reports and Scimago Journal Rank? Learned Publishing, 26(2), 101-113.
13. Delgado López-Cózar, E., &Robinson-García, N. (2012). Repositories in Google Scholar Metrics or what is this document type doing in a place as such? Cybermetrics, 16(1), Paper 4. Available at: http://cybermetrics.cindoc.csic.es/articles/v16i1p4.html
14. Delgado López-Cózar, E., Robinson-García, N., &Torres-Salinas, D. (2012). Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: Simple, easy and tempting. EC3Working Papers 6.Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10481/20469
15. Falagas, M.E., &Alexiou, V.G. (2008). The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 56(4), 223-226.
16. Harzing, A.-W. (2012). How to become an author of ESI Highly Cited Papers? Available at: http://www.harzing.com/esi-highcite.htm
17. Harzing, A.-W., &van der Wal, R. (2008). Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 61-73.
18. Hicks, D. (2004).The four literatures of social science. In H.F. Moed, W. Glänzel, &U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 473-496). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
19. Jacsó, P. (2011). Google Scholar duped and deduped-the aura of "robometrics." Online Information Review, 35(1), 154-160.
20. Joint Information Systems Committee. (2012). Researchers of tomorrow: The research behaviour of Generation Y doctoral students. Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2012/ Researchers-of-Tomorrow.pdf
21. Kousha, K., &Thelwall, M. (2007). How is science cited on the Web? A classification of Google unique Web citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(11), 1631-1644.
22. Kousha, K., &Thelwall, M. (2011).Assessing the citation impact of books: The role of Google Books, Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2147-2164.
23. Labbé, C. (2010). Ike Antkare, one of the greatest stars in the scientific firmament. ISSI Newsletter, 6(1), 48-52.
24. Markland, M. (2006). Institutional repositories in the UK: What can the Google user find in there? Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 38(4), 221-228.
25. Meho, L., &Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125.
26. Nicholas, D., Clark, D., Rowlands, I., &Jamali, H.R. (2009). Online use and information seeking behaviour: Institutional and subject comparisons of UK researchers. Journal of Information Science, 35(6), 660-676.
27. Opatrný, T. (2008). Playing the system to give low-impact journal more clout. Nature, 455, 167. doi:10.1038/455167b
28. Oransky, I. (2012). A first? Papers retracted for citation manipulation. Retraction Watch. Available at: http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/ a-first-papers-retracted-for-citation-manipulation/
29. Ortega, J.L., &Aguillo, I. (2012). Science is all in the eye of the beholder: Keyword maps in Google scholar citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2370-2377.
30. Ortega, J.L., &Aguillo, I. (2013). Institutional and country collaboration in an online service of scientific profiles: Google Scholar Citations. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 394-403.
31. Peters, D.P., &Ceci, S.J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals-the fate of accepted, published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2), 187-255.
32. Sokal, A. (1996). A physicist experiments with cultural studies. Lingua Franca, 6(4), 62-64.
33. Torres-Salinas, D., Ruiz-Pérez, R., &Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2009). Google Scholar como herramienta para la evaluación científica. El Profesional de la Información, 18(5), 501-510.
34. Walters, W. (2011).Comparative recall and precision of simple and expert searches in Google Scholar and eight other databases. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 11(4), 971-1006.
35. Waltman, L., &van Eck, N.J. (2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 406-415.
36. Wouters, P., &Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control-Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Available at: http://www.surf.nl/nl/publicaties/Documents/ Users%20narcissism%20and%20control.pdf