About the size of Google Scholar: playing the numbers

Thu Sep 18 08:20:16 EDT 2014

Dear Yves, and colleagues:

Our apologies for the delayed response.

Slow bibliometrics... A good slogan for a society and science of hurry. At
a stroke you have smashed down our fashionable specialty trend in our
field. We refer to the ALTMETRICS, a world where everyone every hour
measure everything before you even find meaning to the meter and the
resulting measures.

But we live under the tyranny of the empire of the measure both on a
social level
(trending topics) and scientific level (h index). And we are afraid that
this is unstoppable because we measure vanity and narcissus, inherent in
scientific activity and human nature properties.

Maybe it is time to organize a new Bonfire of the Vanities. Anyway science
progresses only if experienced, and the world of metrics is no different.

Oh, as a best example, YES THIS: Sigmund Freud H index: 245. BUT is this
about who has the longest nose? 

Enrique Orduña-Malea & Emilio Delgado

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Yves Gingras <gingras.yves at uqam.ca> wrote:

> 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/20140918/e4e0e58a/attachment.html>

​About the size of Google Scholar: playing the numbers

About the size of Google Scholar: playing the numbers