Received citations as a main SEO factor of Google Scholar results ranking

Rovira, Cristòfol, Guerrero-Solé, Frederic and Codina, Lluís Received citations as a main SEO factor of Google Scholar results ranking. El profesional de la información, 2018, vol. 27, n. 3, pp. 559-569. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of Scientific research]
Preview
 Text (Scientific research)
61922-203257-1-PB.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (2MB) | Preview

English abstract

The aim of this article is to analyze the web positioning factors that can influence the order, by relevance, in Google Scholar and the subsequent evaluation of the importance of received citations in this ordering process. The methodology of reverse engineering was applied, in which a comparison was made between the Google Scholar ranking and another ranking consisting of only the number of citations received by documents. This investigation was conducted employing four types of searches without the use of keywords: by publication, year, author, and “cited by”. The results were matched in the four samples with correlation coefficients between the two highest rankings, which exceeded 0.9. The present study demonstrates more clearly than in previous research how citations are the most relevant off-page feature in the ranking of search results on Google Scholar. The other features have minimal influence. This information provides a solid basis for the academic search engine optimization (ASEO) discipline. We also developed a new analysis procedure for isolating off-page features that might be of practical use in forthcoming investigations.

Spanish abstract

El objetivo de este artículo es analizar los factores de posicionamiento (SEO) externos que pueden influir en la ordenación por relevancia en Google Scholar y luego identificar el peso las citas recibidas en esta ordenación. Se ha aplicado una metodología de ingeniería inversa comparando el ranking de Google Scholar con un ranking formado tan sólo por el número de citas recibidas por los documentos. El estudio se realizó a partir de cuatro tipos de búsquedas sin palabras clave: por publicación, año, autor y “citado por”. Los resultados fueron coincidentes en las cuatro muestras con coeficientes de correlación entre los dos rankings superiores al 0,9. El presente estudio demuestra de forma más clara que en anteriores investigaciones que las citas recibidas es el factor SEO externo más relevante en el ranking de los resultados en Google Scholar. Los demás factores tienen una influencia mínima. Esta información proporciona una base sólida para la disciplina del posicionamiento en buscadores académicos (ASEO). También hemos desarrollado una nueva propuesta metodológica que aísla los factores SEO externos y que puede ser útil en futuras investigaciones.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: ASEO; SEO; Reverse engineering; Citations; Google Scholar; Indicators; Rankings; Algorithms; Academic search engines; Ingeniería inversa; Citaciones; Google Scholar; Indicadores; Rankings; Algoritmos; Ordenación; Motores de búsqueda académicos.
Subjects: E. Publishing and legal issues. > EB. Printing, electronic publishing, broadcasting.
H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HT. Web 2.0, Social networks
L. Information technology and library technology > LS. Search engines.
Depositing user: Dr Lluís Codina
Date deposited: 19 Jul 2018 11:11
Last modified: 19 Jul 2018 11:11
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/32995

References

Aguillo, Isidro F. (2012). “Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis”. Scientometrics, v. 91, n. 2, pp. 343-351.

https://departments.icmab.es/utc/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2012_Scientometrics_GScholar.pdf?x40472

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0582-8

Beel, Joeran; Gipp, Bela (2009a). “Google Scholar’s ranking algorithm: An introductory overview”. En: Procs of the 12th intl conf on scientometrics and informetrics, ISSI’09, pp. 230-241.

https://goo.gl/c8a6YU

Beel, Joeran; Gipp, Bela (2009b). “Google Scholar's ranking algorithm: the impact of articles' age (an empirical study)”. En: 6th intl conf on information technology: New generations, ITNG'09, pp. 160-164.

https://goo.gl/cfV2my

https://doi.org/10.1109/ITNG.2009.317

Beel, Joeran; Gipp, Bela (2009c). “Google Scholar's ranking algorithm: the impact of citation counts (an empirical study)”. En: 3rd intl conf on research challenges in information science, RCIS 2009, pp. 439-446.

https://www.gipp.com/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/beel09a.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1109/RCIS.2009.5089308

Beel, Joeran; Gipp, Bela (2010). “Academic search engine spam and Google Scholar’s resilience against it”. The journal of electronic publishing, v. 13, n. 3, pp. 1-28.

https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0013.305

Beel, Joeran; Gipp, Bela; Wilde, Erik (2010). “Academic search engine optimization (ASEO). Optimizing scholarly literature for Google Scholar & co”. Journal of scholarly publishing, v. 41, n. 2, pp. 176-190.

https://docear.org/papers/Academic%20Search%20Engine%20Optimization%20(ASEO)%20--%20preprint.pdf

https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.41.2.176

Codina, Lluís (2017). “SEO académico: definición, componentes y guía de herramientas”. Lluís Codina, 17 noviembre.

https://www.lluiscodina.com/seo-academico-guia

De-Groote, Sandra L.; Raszewski, Rebecca (2012). “Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: A case study of the h-index in nursing”. Nursing outlook, v. 60, n. 6, pp. 391-400.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2012.04.007

De-Winter, Joost C. F.; Zadpoor, Amir A.; Dodou, Dimitra (2014). “The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: A longitudinal study”. Scientometrics, v. 98, n. 2, pp. 1547-1565.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1089-2

Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio; Robinson-García, Nicolás; Torres-Salinas, Daniel (2012). Manipular Google Scholar Citations y Google Scholar Metrics: simple, sencillo y tentador. EC3 working papers. Granada: Universidad De Granada.

http://hdl.handle.net/10481/20469

Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio; Robinson-García, Nicolás; Torres-Salinas, Daniel (2014). “The Google Scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators”. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, v. 65, n. 3, pp. 446-454.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.2413

https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23056

Elsevier (2012). “Get found: optimize your research articles for search engines”. Elsevier, 6 Nov.

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/get-found-optimize-your-research-articles-for-search-engines

Emerald Publishing Limited (2017). “How to... disseminate your work”. Emerald Publishing.

http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/authors/guides/promote/disseminate.htm

Enge, Eric; Spencer, Stephan; Stricchiola, Jessie (2015). The art of SEO: mastering search engine optimization. Sebastopol CA: O'Reilly Media. ISBN: 978 1 491903643

Farhadi, Hadi; Salehi, Hadi; Yunus, Melor; Aghaei-Chadegani, Arezoo; Farhadi, Maryam; Fooladi, Masood; Ale-Ebrahim, Nader (2013). “Does it matter which citation tool is used to compare the h-index of a group of highly cited researchers?”. Australian journal of basic and applied sciences, v. 7, n. 4, pp. 198-202.

https://ssrn.com/abstract=2259614

Gielen, Matt; Rosen, Jeremy (2016). “Reverse engineering the YouTube algorithm: Part I”. Tubefilter.com, 23 June.

http://www.tubefilter.com/2016/06/23/reverse-engineering-youtube-algorithm

Giustini, Dean; Boulos, Maged N. K. (2013). “Google Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews”. Online journal of public health informatics, v. 5, n. 2, pp. 1-9.

https://doi.org/10.5210/ojphi.v5i2.4623

Google (2011). “About Google Scholar”. Google Scholar.

http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/about.html

Google (2017). “How Google search works. Learn how Google discovers, crawls, and serves web pages”. Google. Search console help.

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/70897?hl=en

Harzing, Anne-Wil (2011). The publish or perish book: your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. Melbourne, Australia: Tarma Software Research Pty Ltd. ISBN: 978 1 60752 120 4

https://harzing.com/publications/publish-or-perish-book/pdf

Harzing, Anne-Wil (2013). “A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: A longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners”. Scientometrics, v. 94, n. 3, pp. 1057-1075.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0777-7

Harzing, Anne-Wil (2014). “A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013”. Scientometrics, v. 98, n. 1, pp. 565-575.

https://harzing.com/download/gs_coverage.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0975-y

Jacsó, Péter (2008a). “Testing the calculation of a realistic h-index in Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science for FW Lancaster”. Library trends, v. 56, n. 4, pp. 784-815.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b4db/5be1ad5b641d5cbeb4166801235fdcc53b88.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.0.0011

Jacsó, Péter (2008b). “The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar”. Online information review, v. 32, n. 3, pp. 437-452.

https://goo.gl/Hz8ABM

https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520810889718

Jacsó, Péter (2009). “Calculating the h-index and other bibliometric and scientometric indicators from Google Scholar with the Publish or Perish software”. Online information review, v. 33, n. 6, pp. 1189-1200.

https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520911011070

Jacsó, Péter (2012). “Using Google Scholar for journal impact factors and the h-index in nationwide publishing assessments in academia –siren songs and air-raid sirens”. Online information review, v. 36, n. 3, pp. 462-478.

https://goo.gl/FfrDgt

https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521211241503

Jamali, Hamid R.; Asadi, Saeid (2010). "Google and the scholar: the role of Google in scientists' information-seeking behaviour". Online information review, v. 34, n. 2, pp. 282-294.

https://goo.gl/cZrMwi

https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521011036990

Jamali, Hamid R.; Nabavi, Majid (2015). “Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields”. Scientometrics, v. 105, n. 3, pp. 1635-1651.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1642-2

Lemon, Jim (2006). “Plotrix: a package in the red light district of R”. R-News, v. 6, n. 4, pp. 8-12.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260171541_Plotrix_A_package_in_the_red_light_district_of_R

Localseoguide (2016). “Local SEO ranking factors study 2016”. Localseoguide.

http://www.localseoguide.com/guides/2016-local-seo-ranking-factors

Maciá-Domene, Fernando (2015). SEO: técnicas avanzadas. Barcelona: Anaya. ISBN: 978 84 41537309

Marcos, Mari-Carmen; González-Caro, Cristina (2010). “Comportamiento de los usuarios en la página de resultados de los buscadores. Un estudio basado en eye tracking”. El profesional de la información, v. 19, n. 4, pp. 348-358.

https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2010.jul.03

Martín-Martín, Alberto; Ayllón, Juan-Manuel; Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio (2016a). Google Scholar Metrics released: a matter of languages… and something else. Granada: Universidad de Granada.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.06260v1

Martín-Martín, Alberto; Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Ayllón, Juan-Manuel; Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio (2016b). “Back to the past: On the shoulders of an academic search engine giant”. Scientometrics, v. 107, n. 3, pp. 1477-1487.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09111

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1917-2

Martín-Martín, Alberto; Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Ayllón, Juan-Manuel; Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio (2014). Does Google Scholar contain all highly-cited documents (1950-2013)? EC3 working papers. Granada: Universidad de Granada.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8464

Martín-Martín, Alberto; Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Harzing, Anne-Wil; Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio (2017). “Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents?”. Journal of informetrics, v. 11, n. 1, pp. 152-163.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.10439

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.11.008

Mayr, Philipp; Walter, Anne-Kathrin (2007). “An exploratory study of Google Scholar”. Online information review, v. 31, n. 6, pp. 814-830.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.3575.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520710841784

Merton, Robert K. (1968). “The Matthew effect in science”. Science, v. 159, n. 3810, pp. 56-63.

https://goo.gl/Zcpqcc

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56

Moed, Henk F.; Bar-Ilan, Judit; Halevi, Gali (2016). “A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus”. Journal of informetrics, v. 10, n. 2, pp. 533-551.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.05741

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.017

MOZ (2015). Search engine ranking factors 2015.

https://moz.com/search-ranking-factors/correlations

MOZ (2017). Google algorithm change history.

https://moz.com/google-algorithm-change

Muñoz-Martín, Beatriz (2015). “Incrementa el impacto de tus artículos y blogs: de la invisibilidad a la visibilidad”. Revista de la Sociedad Otorrinolaringológica de Castilla y León, Cantabria y La Rioja, v. 6, n. Suppl. 4, pp. 6-32.

http://hdl.handle.net/10366/126907

Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Ayllón, Juan-Manuel; Martín-Martín, Alberto; Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio (2014). About the size of Google Scholar: playing the numbers. EC3 working papers. Granada: Universidad de Granada.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.6239

Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Ayllón, Juan-Manuel; Martín-Martín, Alberto; Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio (2015). “Methods for estimating the size of Google Scholar”. Scientometrics, v. 104, n. 3, pp. 931-949.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1614-6

Orduña-Malea, Enrique; Martín-Martín, Alberto; Ayllón Juan-Manuel; Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio (2016). La revolución Google Scholar: destapando la caja de Pandora académica. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada. ISBN: 978 84 33859419

https://goo.gl/3oUGKQ

Pedersen, Lee A.; Arendt, Julie (2014). “Decrease in free computer science papers found through Google Scholar”. Online information review, v. 38, n. 3, pp. 348-361.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4437/b7cdced46200cee31c26726970b88a3b99ea.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-07-2013-0159

Ratcliff, Christopher (2016). “WebPromo’s Q&A with Google’s Andrey Lipattsev, search engine watch”. Search

https://searchenginewatch.com/2016/04/06/webpromos-qa-with-googles-andrey-lipattsev-transcript

Revelle, William (2017). Psych: procedures for personality and psychological research. Northwestern University.

https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych

Schwartz, Barry (2016). “Now we know: Here are Google’s top 3 search ranking factors”. Search engine land, 24 March.

http://searchengineland.com/now-know-googles-top-three-search-ranking-factors-245882

Searchmetrics (2016). “Rebooting ranking factors”. Searchmetrics.

http://www.searchmetrics.com/knowledge-base/ranking-factors

R Development Core Team (2008). R: a language and environment for statistical computing.

http://softlibre.unizar.es/manuales/aplicaciones/r/fullrefman.pdf

https://www.R-project.org

Torres-Salinas, Daniel; Ruiz-Pérez, Rafael; Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio (2009). “Google scholar como herramienta para la evaluación científica". El profesional de la información, v. 18, n. 5, pp. 501-510.

https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2009.sep.03

Van-Aalst, Jan (2010). “Using Google Scholar to estimate the impact of journal articles in education”. Educational researcher, v. 39, n. 5, pp. 387-400.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0013189X10371120

Van-der-Graaf, Peter (2012). “Reverse engineering search engine algorithms is getting harder”. Search engine watch, 7 June.

https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/how-to/2182553/reverse-engineering-search-engine-algorithms-getting-harder

Walters, William H. (2008). “Google Scholar search performance: Comparative recall and precision”. Portal: Libraries and the academy, v. 9, n. 1, pp. 5-24.

http://cdm15970.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15970coll1/id/83/filename/84.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.0.0034

Wiley (2015). Writing for SEO.

https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/Prepare/writing-for-seo.html


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS