Scientometrics

, Volume 102, Issue 1, pp 829–846 | Cite as

The dark side of open access in Google and Google Scholar: the case of Latin-American repositories

  • Enrique Orduña-Malea
  • Emilio Delgado López-Cózar
Article

Abstract

Since repositories are a key tool in making scholarly knowledge open access (OA), determining their web presence and visibility on the Web (both are proxies of web impact) is essential, particularly in Google (search engine par excellence) and Google Scholar (a tool increasingly used by researchers to search for academic information). The few studies conducted so far have been limited to very specific geographic areas (USA), which makes it necessary to find out what is happening in other regions that are not part of mainstream academia, and where repositories play a decisive role in the visibility of scholarly production. The main objective of this study is to ascertain the web presence and visibility of Latin American repositories in Google and Google Scholar through the application of page count and web mention indicators respectively. For a sample of 137 repositories, the results indicate that the indexing ratio is low in Google, and virtually nonexistent in Google Scholar; they also indicate a complete lack of correspondence between the repository records and the data produced by these two search tools. These results are mainly attributable to limitations arising from the use of description schemas that are incompatible with Google Scholar (repository design) and the reliability of web mention indicators (search engines). We conclude that neither Google nor Google Scholar accurately represent the actual size of OA content published by Latin American repositories; this may indicate a non-indexed, hidden side to OA, which could be limiting the dissemination and consumption of OA scholarly literature.

Keywords

Open access Repositories Google Google Scholar Webometrics Web indicators Web visibility Indexing Latin America 

Supplementary material

11192_2014_1369_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (93 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 93 kb)

References

  1. Aguillo, I. F. (2009). Measuring the institutions’ footprint in the web. Library Hi Tech, 27(4), 540–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguillo, I. F. (2011). Building web indicators for the EU OA repository. Workshop on new research lines in informetrics (España).Google Scholar
  3. Aguillo, I. F., & Granadino, B. (2006). Indicadores web para medir la presencia de las universidades en la Red. RUSC: Revista de universidad y sociedad del conocimiento, 3(1), 68–75.Google Scholar
  4. Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., Fernandez, M., & Utrilla, A. M. (2010). Indicators for a webometric ranking of open Access repositories. Scientometrics, 82(3), 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archambault, E., Amyot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A., Rebout, L. & Roberge, G. (2013). Proportion of open access peer-reviewed papers at the european and world. Science-Metrix [Technical report]. http://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/SM_EC_OA_Availability_2004-2011.pdf Accessed 15 March 2014.
  6. Arlitsch, K., & O’Brian, P. S. (2012). Invisible institutional repositories: Addressing the low indexing ratios of IRs in Google. Library Hi Tech, 30(1), 60–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arlitsch, K., O’Brian, P. S., & Rossmann, B. (2013). Managing search engine optimization: An introduction for library administrators. Journal of Library Administrators, 53(2–3), 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Armbruster, C., & Romary, L. (2010). Comparing repository types-challenges and barriers for subject-based repositories, research repositories, national repository systems and institutional repositories in serving scholarly communication. International Journal of Digital Library Systems, 1(4), 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Björk, B.-C. (2014). Open access subject repositories: An overview. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 698–706.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Björk, B. C., Welling, P., Laakso, M., Majlender, P., Hedlund, T., & Gudnason, G. (2010). Open access to the scientific journal literature: Situation 2009. PLoS One, 5(6). http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011273 Accessed 15 March 2014.
  11. Burns, C. S. (2013). Free or open access to scholarly documentation: Google Scholar or academic libraries. University of Missouri.Google Scholar
  12. Calderón-Martínez, A., & Ruiz-Conde, E. (2013). The participation and web visibility of university digital repositories in the European context. Comunicar, 20(40), 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chan, L. (2004). Supporting and enhancing scholarship in the digital age: The role of open access institutional repository. Canadian Journal of Communication, 29(3), 277–300.Google Scholar
  14. Cook, C., Heath, F., Thomson, B., Davis, M., Kyrillidou, M. & Roebuck, G. (2009). LibQual + 2009 Survey. Association of Research Libraries [technical report]. http://www.libqual.org/documents/admin/ARL_Notebook_2009.pdf Accessed 15 March 2014.
  15. Cox, J., & Cox, L. (2003). Scholarly publishing practice: The ALPSPS report on academic journal publishers’ policies and practices in online publishing. London (England): Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Crow, R. (2002). The Case for Institutional Repositories: a SPARC Position Paper. Association of Research Libraries [technical report, n. 223]. http://www.sparc.arl.org/sites/default/files/media_files/instrepo.pdf Accessed 30 April 2014.
  17. De Rosa, C., & OCLC. (2005). Perceptions of libraries and information resources; a report to the OCLC membership. Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.Google Scholar
  18. Delgado López-Cózar, E. & Robinson-García, N. (2012). Repositories in Google Scholar Metrics: what is this document type doing in a place as such. Cybermetrics, v. 16. http://cybermetrics.cindoc.csic.es/articles/v16i1p4.pdf Accessed 15 March 2014.
  19. Galina, I. (2011). La visibilidad de los recursos académicos: una revisión crítica del papel de los repositorios institucionales y el acceso abierto. Investigación Bibliotecológica, 25(53), 159–183.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffiths, J. R., & Brophy, P. (2005). Student searching behavior and the Web: Use of academic resources and Google. Library Trends, 53(4), 545.Google Scholar
  21. Haglund, L., & Olsson, P. (2008). The impact on university libraries of changes in information behavior among academic researchers: a multiple case study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(1), 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallières, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., et al. (2004). The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access. Serial Review, 30(4), 310–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herrera, G. (2011). Google Scholar users and user behaviours: an exploratory study. College and Research Libraries, 72(4), 316–330.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Hixson, C.G. (2005). First we build them, then what?: The future of institutional repositories. BiD, Textos Universitaris de Biblioteconomia i Documentació, (15). http://bid.ub.edu/15hixso2.htm Accessed 30 April 2014.
  25. Holmberg, K. (2010). Web impact factors- a significant contribution to webometric research. In B. Larssen, J. W. Schneider, & F. Åstrom (Eds.), The Janus facet scholar: a festschrift in honour of Peter Ingwersen (pp. 127–134). Copenhaghe: Royal School of Library and Information Science.Google Scholar
  26. Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(14), 1306–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lynch, C. (2003). Institutional repositories: Essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age. ARL Bimonthy Report 226, 1–16. Available at http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/arl-br-226.pdf. Accessed 02 July 2014.
  28. Mas-Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., & Aguillo, I. F. (2014). Successful researchers publicizing research online: an outlink analysis of European highly cited scientists’ personal websites. Journal of Documentation, 70(1), 148–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Orduña-Malea, E. (2012). Propuesta de un modelo de análisis redinformétrico multinivel para el estudio sistémico de las universidades (2010). Valencia: Universidad Politécnica de Valencia [unpublished doctoral dissertation].Google Scholar
  30. Orduña-Malea, (2013). Aggregation of the web performance of internal university units as a method of quantitative analysis of a university system: the case of Spain. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(10), 2100–2114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Orduña-Malea, E., & Regazzi, J. J. (2014). US academic libraries: understanding their web presence and their relationship with economic indicators. Scientometrics, 98(1), 315–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ortega, J. L., Orduña-Malea, E., & Aguillo, I. F. (2014). Influence of language and file type on the web visibility of top European universities. Aslib Proceedings, 66(1), 96–116.Google Scholar
  33. Pinfield, S., Salter, J., Bath, P.A., Hubbard, B., Millington, P., Anders, J.H.S. & Hussain, A. (2014). Open-access repositories worldwide, 2005–2012: Past growth, current characteristics and future possibilities. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.23131
  34. Ruiz-Conde, E., & Calderón-Martinez, A. (2014). University institutional repositories: competitive environment and their role as communication media of scientific knowledge. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1283–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sato, S., & Itsumura, H. (2011). How do people use open access papers in non-academic activities? A link analysis of papers deposited in institutional repositories. Library, Information and Media Studies, 9(1), 51–64.Google Scholar
  36. Scholze, F. (2007). Measuring research impact in an open access environment. Liber Quarterly: The Journal of European Research Libraries, 17(1–4), 220–232.Google Scholar
  37. Schonfeld, Roger C. & Housewright, R. (2010). Faculty Survey 2009: Key Strategic insights for libraries, publishers, and societies (Ithaka S + R, Apr. 7, 2010): 7. http://www.sr.ithaka.org/research-publications/us-faculty-survey-2009 Accessed 15 March 2014.
  38. Smith, A. G. (2011). Wikipedia and institutional repositories: An academic symbiosis? Proceedings of the ISSI 2011 Conference. Durban (South Africa), 794-800.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, A. G. (2012). Webometric evaluation of institutional repositories. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Webometrics Informetrics and Scientometrics & 13th Collnet Meeting. Seoul (Korea), pp. 722-729.Google Scholar
  40. Smith, A.G. (2013). Web Based Impact Measures for Institutional Repositories. Proceedings of the ISSI 2013 conference. Viena (Austria), 1806–1816.Google Scholar
  41. Thelwall, M. (2004). Link analysis: An information science approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  42. Thelwall, M., & Sud, P. (2011). A comparison of methods for collecting web citation data for academic organisations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(8), 1488–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zuccala, A., Oppenheim, C. & Dhiensa, R. (2008). Managing and evaluating digital repositories. Information research, 13(1). http://informationr.net/ir/13-1/paper333.html Accessed 15 March 2014.
  44. Zuccala, A., Thelwall, M., Oppenheim, C., & Dhiensa, R. (2007). Web intelligence analyses of digital libraries: A case study of the national electronic library for health (NeLH). Journal of Documentation, 63(4), 558–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrique Orduña-Malea
    • 1
  • Emilio Delgado López-Cózar
    • 2
  1. 1.EC3 Research GroupUniversidad Politécnica de ValenciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.EC3 Research GroupUniversidad de GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations