The dark side of open access in Google and Google Scholar: the case of Latin-American repositories
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.
KeywordsOpen access Repositories Google Google Scholar Webometrics Web indicators Web visibility Indexing Latin America
- Aguillo, I. F. (2011). Building web indicators for the EU OA repository. Workshop on new research lines in informetrics (España).Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- Burns, C. S. (2013). Free or open access to scholarly documentation: Google Scholar or academic libraries. University of Missouri.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- Smith, A. G. (2011). Wikipedia and institutional repositories: An academic symbiosis? Proceedings of the ISSI 2011 Conference. Durban (South Africa), 794-800.Google Scholar
- 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
- Smith, A.G. (2013). Web Based Impact Measures for Institutional Repositories. Proceedings of the ISSI 2013 conference. Viena (Austria), 1806–1816.Google Scholar
- Thelwall, M. (2004). Link analysis: An information science approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- 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.