It is now a common norm to search a researcher's profile on google scholars in order to access his ratings. I know of good researcher's in my field that do not have any google profile.
I believe that it does a significant assessment with regard to published work of a researcher. However, it should not be considered as the only criterion to measure research performance. I know that there are highly renowned professors in my country who have published many works which are in my native language (Sinhalese), not in English. There are many citations of these works which do not come onto on-line. Hence they are not counted by the GS. Also there are many students who use such works and cite them. But many students do not publish their works, hence those citations do not get counted by the GS. Also there is a possibility of adding others’ work into one’s profile in order to increase scores unethically. Another limitation is that research works in terms of films, drams etc do not get counted by the GS.
I don’t see any problem. However, google scholars is highly sensitive and identifies gray literature, indexed articles, etc.
Harzing's Publish or Perish is a free piece of software that can be used to examine citations from Google Scholar.
I believe that it does a significant assessment with regard to published work of a researcher. However, it should not be considered as the only criterion to measure research performance. I know that there are highly renowned professors in my country who have published many works which are in my native language (Sinhalese), not in English. There are many citations of these works which do not come onto on-line. Hence they are not counted by the GS. Also there are many students who use such works and cite them. But many students do not publish their works, hence those citations do not get counted by the GS. Also there is a possibility of adding others’ work into one’s profile in order to increase scores unethically. Another limitation is that research works in terms of films, drams etc do not get counted by the GS.
The overall position is that Google could be one among many other way to assess a researcher but should not be the only source for final decision
In my view, Google Scholar algorithms are not able to capture the full details of citations. If the author's name is not properly taken up in the metadata of the source, it may fail to recognise the author. My personal experience is very poor in this regard.
In any case, it may give some assessment of the impact of the research, but should be taken with a pinch of salt; there are better platforms that give more effective assessment of the quality of work and impact of the researcher.
Citations on Google Scholar are an accurate (true, unbiased) and reliable (repeatable) measure of a researcher's influence. Many people now rely on them to different degrees in order to evaluate scholars and their scholarship.
If someone has thousands of citations (with or without a GS profile), then thousands of others have taken the time and trouble to reference their work. That suggests influence. However, there is no direct correlation between research influence and quality. For example, both lofty praise and savage criticism of an article will generate a citation for its author(s).
I agree with Professor Sushil "In my view, Google Scholar algorithms are not able to capture the full details of citations. If the author's name is not properly taken up in the metadata of the source, it may fail to recognise the author. My personal experience is very poor in this regard. "
I have the same problem - concerning my name - and citations...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology