CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11scientometrics and bibliometrics researchPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationLibrary Science and Information

Google Scholar – Platforming the scholarly economy

Open access
Goldenfein, Jake, Griffin, Daniel·2022·Internet Policy Review
DOI 10.14763/2022.3.1671
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14763/2022.3.1671

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In academic contexts, Google Scholar plays a comparable role by indexing scholarly outputs and ordering them through citation-based metrics, effectively governing the visibility of research, researchers, and institutions.

    “In academic contexts, Google Scholar plays a comparable role by indexing scholarly outputs and ordering them through citation-based metrics, effectively governing the visibility of research, researchers, and institutions (Goldenfein and Griffin, 2022).”

    From Google Arts & Culture and the platformization of cultural heritage: Convergence, gamification, and shifting positions of institutional partners (2026) · cites this paper as Goldenfein and Griffin, 2022

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says Google Scholar uses citation counting to control the visibility of research and researchers. The Search section describes its index and says citation count is estimated to be the most important factor in search ranking. The paper discusses metrics in institutional evaluation, but the passages do not say Google Scholar governs the visibility of institutions. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 100

  1. Acharya, A. (2012). Integrating discovery and access for scholarly articles: Successes and failures. Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284315073 · DOI
  2. Acharya, A. (2015, June 10). Indexing repositories: Pitfalls and best practices [Conference presentation]. Open Repositories 2015 (OR2015), Indianapolis, Indiana, United States. https://medi a.dlib.indiana.edu/media_objects/9z903008w
  3. Anseel, F., Duyck, W., De Baene, W., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). Journal impact factors and self- citations: Implications for psychology journals. American Psychologist, 59(1), 49-51. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.49 · DOI
  4. Arapakis, I., Bai, X., & Cambazoglu, B. B. (2014). Impact of response latency on user behavior in web search. Proceedings of the 37th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval, 103-112. https://doi.org/10.1145/2600428.2609627 · DOI
  5. Aspesi, C., & Brand, A. (2020). In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough. Science, 368(6491), 574-577. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. · DOI
  6. aba3763 · DOI
  7. Aspesi, C., & Luong, H. (2014). Reed Elsevier: Goodbye to Berlin -The fading threat of open access (upgrade to market-perform) [Report]. Bernstein Research. https://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/Aspesi.p
  8. Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2009a). Google Scholar's ranking algorithm: The impact of citation counts (an empirical study). Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RICS'09), 439-446. https://doi.org/10.1109/RCIS.2009.5089308 · DOI
  9. Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2009b). Google Scholar's ranking algorithm: An introductory overview. In B. Larsen & J. Leta (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI 2009) (Vol. 1, pp. 230-241). BIREME/PAHO/WHO & Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. https://www.issi-society.org/publications/issi-conference-proceedings/proceedings-of-issi-2 009/
  10. Bianco, M., Gras, N., & Sutz, J. (2016). Academic evaluation: Universal instrument? Tool for development? Minerva, 54(4), 399-421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-016-9306-9 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Black, M. L. (2020). Usable and useful: On the origins of transparent design in personal computing. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 45(3), 515-537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919865584 · DOI
  12. Bodó, B. (2019). Was the open knowledge commons idea a curse in disguise? -Towards sovereign institutions of knowledge. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3502119 · DOI
  13. Bowles, M. D. (2000). Liquefying information: Controlling the flood in the Cold War and beyond. In M. R. Levin (Ed.), Cultures of control (pp. 225-246). Routledge.
  14. Burrows, R. (2012). Living with the h-index? Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy. The Sociological Review, 60(2), 355-372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2012.02077.x · DOI
  15. Butler, D. (2011). Computing giants launch free science metrics. Nature, 476(7358), 18. https://doi.or g/10.1038/476018a · DOI
  16. Cameron, B. D. (2005). Trends in the usage of ISI bibliometric data: Uses, abuses, and implications. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 5(1), 105-125. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2005.0003 · DOI
  17. Chen, G., & Chan, L. (2021). University rankings and governance by metrics and algorithms. In E. Hazelkorn & G. Mihut, Research handbook on university rankings: Theory, methodology, influence, and impact (pp. 425-443). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788974981.00043 · DOI
  18. Chen, G., Posada, A., & Chan, L. (2019). Vertical integration in academic publishing: Implications for knowledge inequality. In L. Chan & P. Mounier (Eds.), Connecting the knowledge commons -From projects to sustainable infrastructure. OpenEdition Press. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.oep.9068 · DOI
  19. Cohen, J. E. (2019). Between truth and power: The legal constructions of informational capitalism (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190246693.001.0001 · DOI
  20. Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2022). What's next for the quantified scholar? Impact, metrics, and (social) media. Business & Society, 61(4), 807-812. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211016778 · DOI
  21. Crawford, B. (2019, May 21). @SSRN and the (arbitrary) determination of 'scholarly' merit. The Faculty Lounge. Conversations about Law, Culture, and Academia. https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2 019/05/ssrn-and-the-arbitrary-determination-of-scholarly-merit.html
  22. Crescenzi, A., Kelly, D., & Azzopardi, L. (2016). Impacts of time constraints and system delays on user experience. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, 141-150. https://doi.org/10.1145/2854946.2854976 · DOI
  23. Csiszar, A. (2018). The scientific journal: Authorship and the politics of knowledge in the nineteenth century. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226553375.001.0001 · DOI
  24. Davis, P. (2011, October 17). Gaming the impact factor puts journal in time-out. The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2011/10/17/gaming-the-impact-factor-puts-journal-in- time-out/
  25. Davis, P. (2018, June 27). Impact factor denied for 20 journals for self-citation, stacking. The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/06/27/impact-factor-denied-20-journal s-self-citation-stacking/
  26. Day, R. E. (2014). Indexing it all: The subject in the age of documentation, information, and data. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10073.001.0001 · DOI
  27. De Bellis, N. (2014). History and evolution of (biblio)metrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics (pp. 47-66). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9445.003.0004 · DOI
  28. de Búrca, G., & Weiler, J. (2020, February 5). Wiley and the European Law Journal. EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. https://www.ejiltalk.org/wiley-and-the-european-law-jour nal/
  29. Dupuis, J. (2016, May 18). Elsevier buys SSRN: Another sideshow or the main event? ScienceBlogs. ht tps://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2016/05/18/elsevier-buys-ssrn-another-sideshow-or-the-main- event
  30. Else, H. (2021, March 25). Row erupts over university's use of research metrics in job-cut decisions. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00793-7 Elsevier. (2017, August 2). Elsevier acquires bepress, a leading service provider used by academic institutions to showcase their research [Press release]. https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-release s/corporate/elsevier-acquires-bepress, -a-leading-service-provider-used-by-academic-institutions-t o-showcase-their-research European Commission. (2019). Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication: Report of the expert group to the European Commission [Report]. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/464477b3-25 59-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1 Evidence Ltd, corp creators. (2007). The use of bibliometrics to measure research quality in UK higher education institutions [Research report]. Universities UK. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk//26316/
  31. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338-342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF Fister, B. (2016, May 17). Platforms and profits. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/bl ogs/library-babel-fish/platforms-and-profits · DOI · Paper page
  32. Fourcade, M., & Kluttz, D. N. (2020). A Maussian bargain: Accumulation by gift in the digital economy. Big Data & Society, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897092 · DOI
  33. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108-111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation: Journals can be ranked by frequency and impact of citations for science policy studies. Science, 178(4060), 471-479. https://d oi.org/10.1126/science.178.4060.471 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: A brief review. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 161(8), 979-980. https://www.cmaj.ca/content/161/8/979
  36. Giglierano, J. (2008). Attitudes of OhioLINK librarians toward Google Scholar. Journal of Library Administration, 47(1-2), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930820802110951 · DOI
  37. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167-194). The MIT Press. h ttps://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262525374.003.0009 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Gingras, Y. (2016). Bibliometrics and research evaluation: Uses and abuses. MIT Press.
  39. Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171-193. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014848323806 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2007). The social construction of bibliometric evaluations. In R. Whitley & J. Gläser (Eds.), The changing governance of the sciences (Vol. 26, pp. 101-123). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6746-4_5 · DOI
  41. Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2019). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Haddow, G., & Hammarfelt, B. (2019). Quality, impact, and quantification: Indicators and metrics use by social scientists. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(1), 16-26. ht tps://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24097 · DOI
  43. Haider, J., & Sundin, O. (2019). Invisible search and online search engines: The ubiquity of search in everyday life (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429448546 · DOI
  44. Halevi, G., Moed, H., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2017). Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation -Review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 823-834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.005 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Hamann, J., & Beljean, S. (2017). Academic evaluation in higher education. In J. C. Shin & P. Teixeira (Eds.), Encyclopedia of international higher education systems and institutions (pp. 1-7). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_295-1 · DOI
  46. Harzing, A. -W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787-804. https://doi.org/1 0.1007/s11192-015-1798-9 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Hecht, F., Hecht, B. K., & Sandberg, A. A. (1998). The journal "impact factor": A misnamed, misleading, misused measure. Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics, 104(2), 77-81. https://doi.org/10.10 16/S0165-4608(97)00459-7 · DOI
  48. Henkel, M. (2007). Can academic autonomy survive in the knowledge society? A perspective from Britain. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(1), 87-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/072943606 01166836 · DOI
  49. Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429-431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a · DOI · Paper page
  50. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102 · DOI · Paper page
  51. UCLA Law Review, 606(2014), 606-670. https://www.uclalawreview.org/free-accou nting-for-the-costs-of-the-internets-most-popular-price-2/
  52. Iglesias, J. E., & Pecharromán, C. (2007). Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics, 73(3), 303-320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1805-x · DOI
  53. Johnson, D. R., & Hermanowicz, J. C. (2017). Peer review: From "sacred ideals" to "profane realities".
  54. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 32, pp. 485-527). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48983-4_10 · DOI
  55. Kamrani, P., Dorsch, I., & Stock, W. G. (2021). Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance? Scientometrics, 126(7), 5489-5508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-0 21-03968-1 · DOI
  56. Kelly, C., & Jennions, M. (2006). The h index and career assessment by numbers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(4), 167-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.01.005 · DOI
  57. Kelty, C. M. (2016, May 18). It's the data, stupid: What Elsevier's purchase of SSRN also means. Savage Minds. Notes and Queries in Anthropology. https://savageminds.org/2016/05/18/its-the-data- stupid-what-elseviers-purchase-of-ssrn-also-means/
  58. Keusch, F., & Kreuter, F. (2021). Digital trace data. In U. Engel, A. Quan-Haase, S. X. Liu, & L. Lyberg, Handbook of computational social science, volume 1 (1st ed., pp. 100-118). Routledge. https://doi.or g/10.4324/9781003024583-8 · DOI
  59. Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2019). The journal impact factor: A brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effects. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer handbook of science and technology indicators (pp. 3-24). Springer International Publishing. https://d oi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1 · DOI
  60. Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. D., & Lautrup, B. E. (2005). Measures and mismeasures of scientific quality. ArXiv: Physics and Society. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.PHYSICS/0512238 · DOI
  61. Lewandowski, D. (2010). Google Scholar as a tool for discovering journal articles in library and information science. Online Information Review, 34(2), 250-262. https://doi.org/10.1108/146845210 11036972 · DOI
  62. Lindh, M., & Nolin, J. (2016). Information we collect: Surveillance and privacy in the implementation of Google Apps for Education. European Educational Research Journal, 15(6), 644-663. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116654917 · DOI
  63. Lynskey, O. (2017). Regulating 'platform power' . SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssr n.2921021 · DOI
  64. Malesios, C. C., & Psarakis, S. (2014). Comparison of the h-index for different fields of research using bootstrap methodology. Quality & Quantity, 48(1), 521-545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1113 5-012-9785-1 · DOI
  65. Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002 · DOI · Paper page
  66. McKiernan, E. C., Schimanski, L. A., Muñoz Nieves, C., Matthias, L., Niles, M. T., & Alperin, J. P. (2019). Use of the journal impact factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. ELife, 8, e47338. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47338 · DOI
  67. Meagher, K. (2021). Introduction: The politics of open access -Decolonizing research or corporate capture? Development and Change, 52(2), 340-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12630 · DOI
  68. Mingers, J., O'Hanley, J. R., & Okunola, M. (2017). Using Google Scholar institutional level data to evaluate the quality of university research. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1627-1643. https://doi.org/10.10 07/s11192-017-2532-6 · DOI
  69. Mirowski, P. (2018). The future(s) of open science. Social Studies of Science, 48(2), 171-203. https://d oi.org/10.1177/0306312718772086 · DOI · Paper page
  70. Mulligan, D. K., & Nissenbaum, H. (2020). The concept of handoff as a model for ethical analysis and design. In M. D. Dubber, F. Pasquale, & S. Das (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ethics of AI (pp. 231-251). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013. · DOI
  71. Nissenbaum, H. F. (2002). New research norms for a new medium. In N. Elkin-Koren & N. Netanel (Eds.), The commodification of information (pp. 433-457). The Hague: Kluwer Academic Press.
  72. Nygaard, L. P., & Bellanova, R. (2017). 2 lost in quantification: Scholars and the politics of bibliometrics. In M. J. Curry & T. Lillis (Eds.), Global academic publishing (pp. 23-36). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783099245-007 · DOI
  73. Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313-345. https://d oi.org/10.1080/02680930500108718 · DOI
  74. O'Neill, O. (2020). Trust and accountability in a digital age. Philosophy, 95(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/1 0.1017/S0031819119000457 · DOI
  75. Ortega, J. L., & Aguillo, I. F. (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. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22761 · DOI
  76. Pendlebury, D. A., & Adams, J. (2012). Comments on a critique of the Thomson Reuters journal impact factor. Scientometrics, 92(2), 395-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0689-6 · DOI
  77. Powers, S. M., & Jablonski, M. (2015). The real cyber war: The political economy of internet freedom. University of Illinois Press. https://doi.org/10.5406/illinois/9780252039126.001.0001 · DOI
  78. Quan, W., Chen, B., & Shu, F. (2017). Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999-2016). Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 486-502. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0014 · DOI
  79. Rached, D. H. (2016). The concept(s) of accountability: Form in search of substance. Leiden Journal of International Law, 29(2), 317-342. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156516000042 · DOI
  80. Rossner, M., Van Epps, H., & Hill, E. (2007). Show me the data. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 204(13), 3052-3053. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20072544 · DOI
  81. Rossner, M., Van Epps, H., & Hill, E. (2008). Irreproducible results: A response to Thomson Scientific. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 205(2), 260-261. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20080053 · DOI
  82. Rovira, C., Codina, L., Guerrero-Solé, F., & Lopezosa, C. (2019). Ranking by relevance and citation counts, a comparative study: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, WoS and Scopus. Future Internet, 11(9), 202. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi11090202 · DOI
  83. Rushforth, A., & de Rijcke, S. (2015). Accounting for impact? The journal impact factor and the making of biomedical research in the Netherlands. Minerva, 53(2), 117-139. https://doi.org/10.100 7/s11024-015-9274-5 · DOI
  84. Salter, B., & Tapper, T. (1994). State and higher education. Woburn Press.
  85. Shaw, R. R. (1948). Royal Society Scientific Information Conference. The American Statistician, 2(4), 14-16, 23. https://doi.org/10.2307/2682685 · DOI
  86. Shore, C. (2010). Beyond the multiversity: Neoliberalism and the rise of the schizophrenic university. Social Anthropology, 18(1), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2009.00094.x · DOI
  87. Shore, C., & Taitz, M. (2012). Who ' owns' the university? Institutional autonomy and academic freedom in an age of knowledge capitalism. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 10(2), 201-219. h ttps://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2012.677707 · DOI
  88. In M. Strathern (Ed.), Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy (pp. 57-89). Routledge.
  89. Smith, S., Ward, V., & House, A. (2011). 'Impact' in the proposals for the UK's Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy. Research Policy, 40(10), 1369-1379. htt ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.026 · DOI
  90. Strathern, M. (2000). The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 309-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/713651562 · DOI
  91. Tanczer, L. M., Deibert, R. J., Bigo, D., Franklin, M. I., Melgaço, L., Lyon, D., Kazansky, B., & Milan, S. (2019). Online surveillance, censorship, and encryption in academia. International Studies Perspectives, 21(1), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekz016 · DOI
  92. Traweek, S. (1992). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Harvard University Press.
  93. Vaidhyanathan, S. (2011). The googlization of everything (and why we should worry). University of California Press.
  94. van Dijck, J. (2010). Search engines and the production of academic knowledge. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(6), 574-592. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877910376582 · DOI
  95. van Noorden, R. (2010). Metrics: A profusion of measures. Nature, 465(7300), 864-866. https://doi.o rg/10.1038/465864a · DOI
  96. van Noorden, R. (2014, November 7). Google Scholar pioneer on search engine's future. Nature News. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2014.16269 · DOI
  97. van Noorden, R. (2021, March 31). Do you obey public-access mandates? Google Scholar is watching. Nature News. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00873-8 · DOI
  98. Veletsianos, G., Houlden, S., Hodson, J., & Gosse, C. (2018). Women scholars' experiences with online harassment and abuse: Self-protection, resistance, acceptance, and self-blame. New Media & Society, 20(12), 4689-4708. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818781324 · DOI · Paper page
  99. Viljoen, S., Goldenfein, J., & McGuigan, L. (2021). Design choices: Mechanism design and platform capitalism. Big Data & Society, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211034312 · DOI
  100. Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S., Jones, R., Kain, R., Kerridge, S., Thelwall, M., Tinkler, J., Viney, I., Wouters, P., Hill, J., & Johnson, B. (2015). The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management [Report]. http s://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363 in cooperation with Published · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goldenfein, J., & Griffin, D.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Goldenfein, Jake
ORCID
Venue
Internet Policy Review
Publisher
Internet Policy Review, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society
Published
2022-09-29
Volume
11
Issue
3
ISSN
2197-6775 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.14763/2022.3.1671
OpenAlex
W4304688961
Cited by
11
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
FWCI
1.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Internet Policy Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1537324)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Library Science and Information
Keywords
Google Scholar, citation counting, bibliometric analysis, open access publishing, academic search engines, research evaluation, academic autonomy, data intermediation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review