The Google Scholar h-index: useful but burdensome metric

Abstract

A recent paper in Scientometrics highlighted how the h-index of an academic can be represented differently by different platforms, for example by Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar or ResearchGate. Although users (academics) create content on these platforms, usually in the form of professional profiles that describe their publication records, and in the case of Google Scholar, content is also added externally. If a user is not cautious or does not frequently revise their publication record to cleanse their accounts of falsely introduced publications, or duplicates, they risk having professional profiles that are erroneous, due to no error of their own. Academics are constantly pressed for time, so any deviation from their ability to manage their schedule effectively represents additional weight and responsibility. This note indicates how, in just a four-month period (16 February to 25 June 2018), the Google Scholar account of the author has become polluted with literature that was not published by the author. A total of 54 false (i.e., not the author’s) papers had been added to the account, attributing falsely a total of 325 citations to the author that in fact did not belong to the author. Of the 54 falsely added papers, 31 did not have any citations. Those false entries alone inflated the total i10-index from 282 to 290. In an age where the element of “fake” is causing considerable consternation for academics and publishers alike, undermining the integrity of science overall, academics do not need the introduction of false academic variables into professional academic social media accounts. Google Scholar is a useful platform, but the introduction of false elements into academics’ accounts misrepresent their true output. Not only is this a burdensome irritant, it reduces the academic value of Google Scholar. Reliability can only be regained when false entries stop being introduced by Google into academics’ accounts.