Google scholar has preferences for what it adds, and how quickly. It takes days for a bioRxiv preprint to show up, but the published article can take much longer. This varies from journal to journal, and it's no secret.
I did recently publish a paper with Proceedings of the Royal Society B (June 22, 2022). The preprint is on Google Scholar and was added with typical efficiency. The published article though, has failed to be detected/updated by Google Scholar for over 2 months and counting.
I wonder how that affects citation pickups, and also why such a well-respected journal (since 1830!!!) hasn't managed to attract Google Scholar's attention...
Any other egregious examples of Google Scholar journal preference? Would be curious to have a discussion on RG that compiles a list of Google Scholar preferences (or ignorances).
Same here. bioRxiv preprint added within 2 days. Paper published in Plos Pathogens not detected after more than 1 month.
Just to say, both my PLOS Genetics and my Proc R Soc B articles published in June are STILL not detected by Google Scholar (4 months after).
Both have been cited by other articles that I've read. But as Google Scholar has not detected the published versions, citations to the published versions do not accrue on Google Scholar giving an undercount.
What's really insidious about this is that Google Scholar metrics seem likely to systematically undervalue journal groups, and indirectly suppress their impact statistics by failing to pick up those citations at the same rate as other publishers. Imagine how this would muck with PLOS journal Impact Factor if your crawling bot simply doesn't collect citations to PLOS journals until MONTHS after the paper is published - possibly missing many immediate citations.