How is an academic social site populated? A demographic study of Google Scholar Citations population
This paper intends to describe the population evolution of a scientific information web service during 2011–2012. Quarterly samples from December 2011 to December 2012 were extracted from Google Scholar Citations to analyse the number of members, distribution of their bibliometric indicators, positions, institutional and country affiliations and the labels to describe their scientific activity. Results show that most of the users are young researchers, with a starting scientific career and mainly from disciplines related to information sciences and technologies. Another important result is that this service is settled by waves emanating from specific institutions and countries. This work concludes that this academic social network presents some biases in the population distribution that does not make it representative of the real scientific population.
KeywordsWeb bibliometrics Google Scholar Citations Academic social networks Web demography
- Almousa, O. (2011). Users’ classification and usage-pattern identification in academic social networks. In IEEE Jordan conference on applied electrical engineering and computing technologies AEECT (pp 1–6). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
- Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 3, 7. http://www.bio-diglib.com/content/3/1/7
- Chakraborty, N. (2012). Activities and reasons for using social networking sites by research Scholars in NEHU: A study on Facebook and ResearchGate. 8th convention PLANNER-2012, Sikkim University, Gangtok. Ahmedabad, IN: IFLIBNET. Retrieved from http://ir.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/handle/1944/1666/3.pdf?sequence=1
- Chang, J., Rosenn, I., Backstrom, L., & Marlow, C. (2010). ePluribus: Ethnicity on social networks. In Fourth international conference on weblogs and social media (ICWSM-10). Washington DC: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
- Duggan, M., & Smith, A. (2013). Social media update 2013. Washington DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Social-Media-Update.aspx
- Ebner, M., & Reinhardt, W. (2009). Social networking in scientific conferences—Twitter as tool for strengthen a scientific community. In 4th European conference on technology enhanced learning, EC-TEL 2009. Nice: Springer.Google Scholar
- Garcia, D., Mavrodiev, P., & Schweitzer, F. (2013). Social resilience in online communities: The autopsy of Friendster. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6109.pdf
- Glänzel, W., & Heeffer, S. (2014). Cross-national preferences and similarities in downloads and citations of scientific articles: A pilot study. In Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
- Google Refine. (2015). Google Refine, a power tool for working with messy data (formerly Freebase Gridworks): Google Project Hosting. https://code.google.com/p/google-refine/
- Halevi, G., & Moed, H. (2014). Usage patterns of scientific journals and their relationship with citations. In Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
- Haley, M. R. (2014). Ranking top economics and finance journals using Microsoft academic search versus Google scholar: How does the new publish or perish option compare? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(5), 1079–1084.Google Scholar
- Huang, Z., & Yuan, B. (2012). Mining Google Scholar Citations: An exploratory study. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7389, 182–189.Google Scholar
- Mendeley. (2012). Global research report. Retrieved from http://www.mendeley.com/global-research-report/#.UsbnMLQ5s4M
- Menendez, M., de Angeli, A., & Menestrina, Z. (2012). Exploring the virtual space of academia. In J. Dugdale, et al. (Eds.), From research to practice in the design of cooperative systems: Results and open challenges. London: Springer.Google Scholar
- Mislove, A., Lehmann, S., Ahn, Y. Y., Onnela, J. P., & Rosenquist, J. N. (2011). Understanding the demographics of Twitter users. In 5th international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (pp 554–557). Barcelona: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
- Ortega, J. L. (2014). Academic search engines: A quantitative outlook (p 200). Cambridge: Chandos Publishing. ISBN:1843347911.Google Scholar
- Ortega, J. L., & Aguillo, I. F. (2014). Microsoft academic search and Google scholar citations: A comparative analysis of author profiles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1149–1156.Google Scholar
- ResearchGate. (2014). Main page. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/.
- Seber, G. A. F. (2002). The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. Caldwel, NJ: Blackburn Press.Google Scholar
- Watson, A. B. (2009). Comparing citations and downloads for individual articles at the Journal of Vision. Journal of Vision, 9(4), article i. Retrieved from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/9/4/i.