About the size of Google Scholar: playing the numbers
William Gunn
william.gunn at MENDELEY.COM
Thu Sep 11 14:20:33 EDT 2014
Steven, I can assure you that if someone from Elsevier suggested that a
researcher put a link to a GS profile in their CV during a Mendeley
seminar, they were very much off message.
Google Scholar did a great thing by making a comprehensive index of
literature and profiles available to anyone, but they seem to have stopped
there. The index includes quite a bit of nonsense, which makes its size
less impressive and its counts questionable. Furthermore, the lack of API,
in contrast to the good API support for their other products, is not
accidental. It's a deliberate decision by the GS team which should concern
anyone considering institutionalizing their use of GS.
I have a lot of respect for the GS team, and they did a great thing going
as far as they did to make an index available, I just wish they could have
gone one step further.
Best,
William Gunn | Head of Academic Outreach, Mendeley | @mrgunn
http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/william-gunn | (650) 614-1749
On Sep 11, 2014 8:43 AM, "Stephen J Bensman" <notsjb at lsu.edu> wrote:
> Isidro and Yves,
>
> That is very interesting. How did you find what is the highest h-index in
> GS citations? Bourdieu died in 2002 before GS, so how did his h-index
> become public?
>
>
>
> Like it or not, Google Scholar is the biggest game in town, and Elsevier
> seems to recognize this. I have attended its Mendeley webinars, and it is
> here that the presenters advised that the URL to your GS citations be
> posted on your site and pasted into your CV.
>
>
>
> Google has so many fish to fry, and I regret that it is not putting more
> effort into its scholarly and library operations. Google used to have
> representatives at ALA conventions, and its exhibit was the most
> interesting. They are not there anymore. It has to be recognized that
> Google did in digitalizing books in five years what libraries estimated
> would take a century. They do amaze me, but something better will come
> along.
>
>
>
>
>
> Stephen J Bensman
>
> LSU Libraries
>
> Lousiana State University
>
> Baton Rouge, LA 70803
>
> USA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:
> SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Yves Gingras
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:21 AM
> *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] About the size of Google Scholar: playing
> the numbers
>
>
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
> Hello
>
> Having worked with Bourdieu before is untimely death in 2002, I cannot let
> pass this opportinity to suggest that it would be nice if in addition to
> just looking at h-index for the fun of it (which by the way we do not need
> to know that Bourdieu is among the very few great sociologists of the
> second half of the 20th century) people read his book: *Science of
> science and reflexivity* (Chicago press, 2004). He talks briefly about
> scientometrics on p. 14, and putting more *reflexive *sociology into our *thinking
> *before *counting *would be welcome...
>
> After “slow science” why not a new motto for all of us: “slow
> bibliometrics: thinking before counting”
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Yves Gingras
>
>
>
> Le 11/09/14 10:34, « Isidro F. Aguillo » <isidro.aguillo at CCHS.CSIC.ES> a
> écrit :
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> Dear Stephen,
>
> Thanks for your comments. I understand the private nature of Google, but
> Mendeley (owned by Elsevier) and other similar biblio/altmetric sources are
> also commercial backed companies and they are offering good APIs for
> in-depth, large data analysis.
>
> as a matter of curiosity I checked the largest h-index in Google Scholar
> Citations and it looks to be:
>
>
> Pierre Bourdieu
>
> Centre de Sociologie Européenne, Collège de France
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=d_lp40IAAAAJ&hl=en
> <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=d_lp40IAAAAJ&hl=en>
> <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=d_lp40IAAAAJ&hl=en>
>
> Citations 361973
> h-index 207
>
> Any better candidates?
>
>
> On 11/09/2014 16:13, Stephen J Bensman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Isidro,
>
> Unfortunately Google is a cautious private enterprise company with
> commercial interest and secrets. For example, it is very cautious when it
> comes to copyright. I really hate it when I find a book chapter of
> interest to me but cannot download it or copy/paste it. Moreover, with
> Google Scholar citations it allows you to make the choice whether you want
> yours public or private. That keeps the door open for Harzing’s
> Publish-or-Perish program. Google does not want any law suits resulting
> from making your private data public without your permission.
>
>
>
> Google allows you large enough samples for most purposes. For example,
> when it comes to individuals, the main measure appears to be the h-index.
> For analytical purposes, your h-index has to be above 50 to provide a
> proper sample. Few people have h-indexes above 50, and I know of none with
> an h-index above 1000.
>
>
>
> Google’s database is Google’s private property. It can do with it what it
> wants. I imagine that—like Thomson Reuters—you could purchase a lot of
> data from it. However, you may be some sort of Bolshevik, who wants the
> right to expropriate it. As for the uselessness of Google Scholar, I will
> quote your compatriots below:
>
>
>
> “Now, when empirical studies (
> http://googlescholardigest.blogspot.com.es/p/bibliography.html)
> demonstrate every day that Google Scholar and its derivatives
>
>
>
> a) measure with similar credit to traditional bibliometric indicators,
>
> b) are the most used products by scientists (*http://www.nature.com/news/online-collaboration-scientists-and-the-social-network-1.15711)
> <http://www.nature.com/news/online-collaboration-scientists-and-the-social-network-1.15711)>
> <http://www.nature.com/news/online-collaboration-scientists-and-the-social-network-1.15711%29>
> <http://www.nature.com/news/online-collaboration-scientists-and-the-social-network-1.15711%29>
> *,”
>
>
>
> Why don’t you take up your case with them as well?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Stephen J Bensman
>
> LSU Libraries
>
> Lousiana State University
>
> Baton Rouge, LA 70803
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [
> mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] <SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU]> *On
> Behalf Of *Isidro F. Aguillo
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 11, 2014 1:46 AM
> *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: [SIGMETRICS] About the size of Google Scholar: playing
> the numbers
>
>
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> <http://web.utk.edu/%7Egwhitney/sigmetrics.html>
> <http://web.utk.edu/%7Egwhitney/sigmetrics.html>
>
> Are you talking about Google Scholar?
>
> The useless bibliographic tool that does not allow to extract large data
> sets?
>
> The system that blocked the access to it to your whole organization if
> you try to do it?
>
> Are suffering CAPTCHA?
>
> Is somebody able to talk with them and convince of changing their
> approach to our community?
>
> On 10/09/2014 20:17, Stephen J Bensman wrote:
>
>
>
> Enrique and Emilio.
>
> I read your working paper with great interest as it deals with the same
> topic on which we are doing research here at LSU. To tell you the honest
> truth, I had trouble with its basic premise, i.e., that Google Scholar (GS)
> has a given size. I do not think that it does, and, if it does, it is
> meaningless. The real problem is what is the size of documentary set that
> is relevant to the search query.
>
>
>
> The WWW and PageRank (the Google search engine) operate within what can be
> called the power-law or Lotkaian domain. Informetric laws also operate
> within this domain. On top of that, PageRank operates on what is called
> the probability ranking principle, by which the probability of relevance
> exponentially decreases as the number of inlinks decreases, i.e. below a
> certain point you are dealing with gibberish manufactured by the search
> engine itself. Therefore, there is a need for left truncation and
> determination of what can be termed the x-min. Since we are dealing with
> the Lotkaian domain, the x-min marks the point where the asymptote or
> “tail” on the x-axis for the items begins.
>
>
>
> We are dealing with Nobelists, and what we have found is that with
> PageRank the set of relevant documents is conterminous with the
> researcher’s h-index and the “tail” of his GS citations distribution. In
> other words—whether by serendipity or not—the h-index is an excellent
> estimate of the x-min of a GS citations distribution. Below that is what
> the Germans would call a “Trummerzone” or rubbish zone largely manufactured
> by the search engine itself. This conterminous-ness is a validation of
> both the h-index and Google Scholar. The relevance of the set is also
> proven by the fact that the extreme outliers on the right messing up the
> tail are usually works on the topics for which the Nobelist won the prize.
> Case closed.
>
>
>
> Every field has its statistical problem. With medical research it is
> right truncation, for every patient has to die before the results are
> really known. With the WWW and scientometric research, it is left
> truncation.
>
>
>
> If you are interested in how I view how Google Scholar works, you can read
> our working papers at the following URLs:
>
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.3872
>
>
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.4904
>
>
>
> I hope to post another working paper there next week that will really
> clinch the point. But who knows? I may be wrong.
>
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
>
> Stephen J Bensman, Ph.D.
>
> LSU Libraries
>
> Lousiana State University
>
> Baton Rouge, LA 70803
>
> USA
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [
> mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] <SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU]> *On
> Behalf Of *Enrique Orduña
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2014 5:15 AM
> *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
> *Subject:* [SIGMETRICS] About the size of Google Scholar: playing the
> numbers
>
>
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> <http://web.utk.edu/%7Egwhitney/sigmetrics.html>
> <http://web.utk.edu/%7Egwhitney/sigmetrics.html>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> The purpose of this mail is to present our latest working paper,
> deposited on July 24, 2014.
>
> http://googlescholardigest.blogspot.com.es/2014/09/about-size-of-google-scholar-playing.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We propose the inextricable task of knowing the size of this huge black
> hole looks like Google Scholar (GS). Anyway, as the title of the document (
>
>
>
>
>
>
> About the size of Google Scholar: playing the numbers), we have begun to
> make accounts and using 4 different empirical methods we estimate that the
> number of unique documents (different versions of a document are excluded)
> should not be less than 160 million (as of May 2014).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regardless of this particular outcome, which is itself significant
> (especially when compared with other scientific databases, and that gives
> us key clues about the amount of scientific knowledge that can be
> searchable, found and accessed to on the web), even more exciting is the
> methodological challenge of this assumption. It has not only forced us to
> devise various techniques for measuring the size of this dark object that
> GS is, but
>
>
>
> also
>
>
> applying them we have shed light, again, on various inconsistencies,
> uncertainties and limitations of the search interface tools used by Google.
> In short, we have learned more about what Google Scholar does or does not,
> and we want to share it with you all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This research comes at a good time. We are not only almost celebrating the
> 10th anniversary of GS but also hearing some voices (from somewhere in
> Europe…) finally relying on the use of Google Scholar for scientific
> evaluation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Now, when empirical studies (
> http://googlescholardigest.blogspot.com.es/p/bibliography.html)
> demonstrate every day that Google Scholar and its derivatives
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> a) measure with similar credit to traditional bibliometric indicators,
>
>
>
>
> b) are the most used products by scientists (
> http://www.nature.com/news/online-collaboration-scientists-and-the-social-network-1.15711),
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> c) have unfortunately ended up with the competition (Microsoft Academic
> Search is in an unexplained hibernation,
> http://googlescholardigest.blogspot.com.es/2014/04/empirical-evidences-microsoft-academic-search-dead.html)
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> seems that certain euphoria unleashed. We are pleased, better late than
> never…
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> However, without wanting to lower the aroused expectations, we emphasize
> that the problems of Google Scholar for scientific evaluation are not
> technical or methodological (coverage, reliability and validity of the
> measures, records filtering performance…). Seminal limitations are those
> related with:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> a) the ease with which GS indicators can be manipulated
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (
> http://ec3noticias.blogspot.com.es/2014/01/google-scholar-wins-ravesbut-can-it-be.htmt),
>
> b) the transience of the results and measures (in many cases difficult to
> replicate stably),
>
> c) the technological dependence on companies that develop tools that come
> and go on the consumer product market (
> http://ec3noticias.blogspot.com.es/2014/04/la-new-new-horizontes.html-bibliometrics).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Google Scholar enthusiasts are now welcome; meanwhile we will continue
> vigorously in which we already proposed several years ago: to reveal with
> “data”
>
>
>
> -
>
>
> and not mere opinions
>
>
>
> -
>
>
> , the bowels of Google Scholar, and to reveal at the same time their
> strengths and weaknesses. So, like the old serials published, we can only
> promise...TO BE CONTINUED…
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Enrique Orduña-Malea
>
>
>
>
> Polytechnic University of Valencia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Emilio Delgado López-Cózar
>
>
>
>
> Universidad de Granada
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yves Gingras
>
> Professeur
> Département d'histoire
> Centre interuniversitaire de recherche
> sur la science et la technologie (CIRST)
> Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire
> et sociologie des sciences
> Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST)
> UQAM
> C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville
> Montréal, Québec
> Canada, H3C 3P8
>
> Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053
> Fax: (514)-987-7726
>
> http://www.chss.uqam.ca
> http://www.cirst.uqam.ca
> http://www.ost.uqam.ca
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20140911/2e967211/attachment.html>
More information about the SIGMETRICS
mailing list