Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Google Scholar
1,193 views
Skip to first unread message
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Dec 30, 2013, 2:44:47 AM12/30/13
to
Not long ago, Google Scholar introduced a bibliographic service:
http://scholar.google.de/
in some respects similar to the long-established ADS abstract service:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
It is more automatic than ADS, which means that it often has more
citations for a given author, though it also has more mistakes. Also,
an author can, to some extent, manage his own articles. In particular,
multiple entries for the same article (usually due to different sources:
journal, arXiv, institutional website, personal website) can be merged
into one entry (and the citations will be merged as well, reflected the
total but ignoring all but one citation for those which cited more than
one source).
However, I recently noticed that a couple of my articles were WRONGLY
merged automatically. I've included a reply to an automatic email from
Google below; this automatic email was the response to filling out a
feedback form to report the problem.
I encourage other people who have their own account report problems with
their own citations. I'm sure that other people are affected, and the
more report a problem, the more likely it is that it will be solved.
---------8<--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: CALVIN::HELBIG "Phillip Helbig" 29-DEC-2013 12:29:25.30
To: SMTP%"scholar...@google.com"
CC: HELBIG
Subj: Re: [9-4397000002443] articles WRONGLY merged (not by me)
Hi!
> If you have a question or concern that is not addressed by these
> answers, please reply to this email for further assistance.
I do and I will do so below.
> Two of my papers are listed as one... Some citations aren't counted...
> Please reply to this message with detailed examples of the problem. Please
> include the queries you used as well as the specific articles in question.
> Google Scholar is based on automated indexing algorithms. We're unable to
> make individual changes, but specific examples will help improve the
> automated techniques and will result in improved results for all users.
First, here's the URL:
http://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=6CcUv5UAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&pagesize=100
The problem is with the seventh paper from the top, where the number of
citations is crossed out. This was correct until a couple of days ago.
It has been WRONGLY merged with the sixth paper from the top. Both
papers are part of a series of (up to now) 4 papers, whose titles differ
only in the subtitles, which are introduced by Roman numerals. Paper II
is now WRONGLY merged with Paper III. (Papers I and IV are still,
correctly, listed as separate papers.)
Please correct this. It reflects badly on both Google Scholar and on
me.
Thanks,
Phillip Helbig
http://scholar.google.de/
in some respects similar to the long-established ADS abstract service:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
It is more automatic than ADS, which means that it often has more
citations for a given author, though it also has more mistakes. Also,
an author can, to some extent, manage his own articles. In particular,
multiple entries for the same article (usually due to different sources:
journal, arXiv, institutional website, personal website) can be merged
into one entry (and the citations will be merged as well, reflected the
total but ignoring all but one citation for those which cited more than
one source).
However, I recently noticed that a couple of my articles were WRONGLY
merged automatically. I've included a reply to an automatic email from
Google below; this automatic email was the response to filling out a
feedback form to report the problem.
I encourage other people who have their own account report problems with
their own citations. I'm sure that other people are affected, and the
more report a problem, the more likely it is that it will be solved.
---------8<--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: CALVIN::HELBIG "Phillip Helbig" 29-DEC-2013 12:29:25.30
To: SMTP%"scholar...@google.com"
CC: HELBIG
Subj: Re: [9-4397000002443] articles WRONGLY merged (not by me)
Hi!
> If you have a question or concern that is not addressed by these
> answers, please reply to this email for further assistance.
I do and I will do so below.
> Two of my papers are listed as one... Some citations aren't counted...
> Please reply to this message with detailed examples of the problem. Please
> include the queries you used as well as the specific articles in question.
> Google Scholar is based on automated indexing algorithms. We're unable to
> make individual changes, but specific examples will help improve the
> automated techniques and will result in improved results for all users.
First, here's the URL:
http://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=6CcUv5UAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&pagesize=100
The problem is with the seventh paper from the top, where the number of
citations is crossed out. This was correct until a couple of days ago.
It has been WRONGLY merged with the sixth paper from the top. Both
papers are part of a series of (up to now) 4 papers, whose titles differ
only in the subtitles, which are introduced by Roman numerals. Paper II
is now WRONGLY merged with Paper III. (Papers I and IV are still,
correctly, listed as separate papers.)
Please correct this. It reflects badly on both Google Scholar and on
me.
Thanks,
Phillip Helbig
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Jan 1, 2014, 3:05:51 PM1/1/14
to
In article <l9p4el$gfl$1...@online.de>, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de
logging in, do the following:
o Select "Profile updates" from the "Actions" menu at the bottom.
Change this so that updates are confirmed by email, rather than
done automatically. Obviously, people with a very active profile
and/or who don't care about the accuracy might not want to do
this. The profile will still be updated, but one gets a
confirmation email before this is done. I assume this is only for
changes to the articles in the list, not for changes in the number
of citations. This step is optional, but will hopefully avoid
wrong updates in the future.
o Find out (by selecting the link on the number) with which article
the article with the cross-out number of citations has been
merged.
o Select this "master article".
o Select "Edit" from the menu at the bottom.
o Select "Unmerge this article and add it to my profile as a
separate entry." for the incorrectly merged article.
o On the main page, there should be two versions of this article,
with the same number of citations, but one will have a crossed-out
number of citations.
o Select the tick boxes for these two articles.
o At the bottom, select "Merge" from the "Actions" menu.
o Choose which should be the main article.
(Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) writes:
> Not long ago, Google Scholar introduced a bibliographic service:
>
> http://scholar.google.de/
>
> in some respects similar to the long-established ADS abstract service:
>
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
> Not long ago, Google Scholar introduced a bibliographic service:
>
> http://scholar.google.de/
>
> in some respects similar to the long-established ADS abstract service:
>
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
> I recently noticed that a couple of my articles were WRONGLY
> merged automatically. I've included a reply to an automatic email from
> Google below; this automatic email was the response to filling out a
> feedback form to report the problem.
It is not obvious, but it is possible to correct this oneself. After
> merged automatically. I've included a reply to an automatic email from
> Google below; this automatic email was the response to filling out a
> feedback form to report the problem.
logging in, do the following:
o Select "Profile updates" from the "Actions" menu at the bottom.
Change this so that updates are confirmed by email, rather than
done automatically. Obviously, people with a very active profile
and/or who don't care about the accuracy might not want to do
this. The profile will still be updated, but one gets a
confirmation email before this is done. I assume this is only for
changes to the articles in the list, not for changes in the number
of citations. This step is optional, but will hopefully avoid
wrong updates in the future.
o Find out (by selecting the link on the number) with which article
the article with the cross-out number of citations has been
merged.
o Select this "master article".
o Select "Edit" from the menu at the bottom.
o Select "Unmerge this article and add it to my profile as a
separate entry." for the incorrectly merged article.
o On the main page, there should be two versions of this article,
with the same number of citations, but one will have a crossed-out
number of citations.
o Select the tick boxes for these two articles.
o At the bottom, select "Merge" from the "Actions" menu.
o Choose which should be the main article.
b.k.shr...@ieee.org
Jan 1, 2015, 11:08:08 AM1/1/15
to
I am also having the same issue. The issue is, the citations of the
two articles are merged. The details of them are given below:
1. Image denoising based on non-local means filter and its method
noise thresholding, Signal, Image and Video Processing, Volume 7,
Issue 6 , pp 1211-1227, 2014 (DOI:10.1007/s11760-012-0389-y)
2. Image denoising based on gaussian/bilateral filter and its method
noise thresholding, Signal, Image and Video Processing, Volume 7,
Issue 6 ,pp 1159-1172, 2014 (DOI:10.1007/s11760-012-0372-7)
You can observe that, these 2 articles are published in the same issue
and volume of the same Journal. These 2 articles have different DOIs.
I am wondering why the citations of these two articles are merged even
though they have different citations and DOIs. I hope this can be
solved.
[Mod. note: I doubt it will be solved by posting here! -- mjh]
two articles are merged. The details of them are given below:
1. Image denoising based on non-local means filter and its method
noise thresholding, Signal, Image and Video Processing, Volume 7,
Issue 6 , pp 1211-1227, 2014 (DOI:10.1007/s11760-012-0389-y)
2. Image denoising based on gaussian/bilateral filter and its method
noise thresholding, Signal, Image and Video Processing, Volume 7,
Issue 6 ,pp 1159-1172, 2014 (DOI:10.1007/s11760-012-0372-7)
You can observe that, these 2 articles are published in the same issue
and volume of the same Journal. These 2 articles have different DOIs.
I am wondering why the citations of these two articles are merged even
though they have different citations and DOIs. I hope this can be
solved.
[Mod. note: I doubt it will be solved by posting here! -- mjh]
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Jan 1, 2015, 4:44:51 PM1/1/15
to
In article <mt2.0-24961...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>,
doing things right?
> 1. Image denoising based on non-local means filter and its method
> noise thresholding, Signal, Image and Video Processing, Volume 7,
> Issue 6 , pp 1211-1227, 2014 (DOI:10.1007/s11760-012-0389-y)
>
> 2. Image denoising based on gaussian/bilateral filter and its method
> noise thresholding, Signal, Image and Video Processing, Volume 7,
> Issue 6 ,pp 1159-1172, 2014 (DOI:10.1007/s11760-012-0372-7)
>
> You can observe that, these 2 articles are published in the same issue
> and volume of the same Journal. These 2 articles have different DOIs.
> I am wondering why the citations of these two articles are merged even
> though they have different citations and DOIs. I hope this can be
> solved.
Sounds like my problem, though my articles were in different journals.
Basically, in my case, Google Article A and Google Article B both point
to the real article B in the "Scholar Articles". However, in both cases
the citations are mostly for (Google and real) article A. In the case
of Google Article A, the number of citations is crossed out and there is
an asterisk with a link indicating that something is wrong. It says
that this can be fixed by editing by hand, but there are two problems.
First, the change is automatically reverted (even if one has chosen the
option to get updates confirmed by email); second, real article A seems
completely unknown to Google Scholar, although it is not in an obscure
journal or anything.
Emails to the address supplied for the case that the FAQ doesn't have
the answer go unanswered. It looks like Google Scholar isn't interested
in fixing things like this.
Maybe mentioning this again will cause some reader who has some
connection to Google Scholar to get something done via talking to the
right people. If not, then maybe we should just forget Google Scholar
Citations.
Many people have noticed that it tends to have more than ADS. However,
this might be because not all of them are correct. ADS isn't complete,
but most citations listed there are real and one can actually contact a
human to get mistakes fixed and such requests are processed promptly.
My suggestion: Forget Google Scholar Citations and use ADS. Anyone
interested in bibliometry will know that the former is much worse than
the latter. Anyone using the former because of ignorance is not someone
you should want to work for anyway. :-)
For reference, Google Article A is
http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en
&oe=ASCII&user=6CcUv5UAAAAJ&pagesize=100&citation_for_view=6CcU
v5UAAAAJ:pqnbT2bcN3wC
and B is
http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en
&oe=ASCII&user=6CcUv5UAAAAJ&pagesize=100&citation_for_view=6CcU
v5UAAAAJ:ldfaerwXgEUC
"b.k.shr...@ieee.org" <b.k.shr...@ieee.org> writes:
> I am also having the same issue. The issue is, the citations of the
> two articles are merged. The details of them are given below:
You should have quoted the issue. Was it Google Scholar Citations not
> I am also having the same issue. The issue is, the citations of the
> two articles are merged. The details of them are given below:
doing things right?
> 1. Image denoising based on non-local means filter and its method
> noise thresholding, Signal, Image and Video Processing, Volume 7,
> Issue 6 , pp 1211-1227, 2014 (DOI:10.1007/s11760-012-0389-y)
>
> 2. Image denoising based on gaussian/bilateral filter and its method
> noise thresholding, Signal, Image and Video Processing, Volume 7,
> Issue 6 ,pp 1159-1172, 2014 (DOI:10.1007/s11760-012-0372-7)
>
> You can observe that, these 2 articles are published in the same issue
> and volume of the same Journal. These 2 articles have different DOIs.
> I am wondering why the citations of these two articles are merged even
> though they have different citations and DOIs. I hope this can be
> solved.
Basically, in my case, Google Article A and Google Article B both point
to the real article B in the "Scholar Articles". However, in both cases
the citations are mostly for (Google and real) article A. In the case
of Google Article A, the number of citations is crossed out and there is
an asterisk with a link indicating that something is wrong. It says
that this can be fixed by editing by hand, but there are two problems.
First, the change is automatically reverted (even if one has chosen the
option to get updates confirmed by email); second, real article A seems
completely unknown to Google Scholar, although it is not in an obscure
journal or anything.
Emails to the address supplied for the case that the FAQ doesn't have
the answer go unanswered. It looks like Google Scholar isn't interested
in fixing things like this.
Maybe mentioning this again will cause some reader who has some
connection to Google Scholar to get something done via talking to the
right people. If not, then maybe we should just forget Google Scholar
Citations.
Many people have noticed that it tends to have more than ADS. However,
this might be because not all of them are correct. ADS isn't complete,
but most citations listed there are real and one can actually contact a
human to get mistakes fixed and such requests are processed promptly.
My suggestion: Forget Google Scholar Citations and use ADS. Anyone
interested in bibliometry will know that the former is much worse than
the latter. Anyone using the former because of ignorance is not someone
you should want to work for anyway. :-)
For reference, Google Article A is
http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en
&oe=ASCII&user=6CcUv5UAAAAJ&pagesize=100&citation_for_view=6CcU
v5UAAAAJ:pqnbT2bcN3wC
and B is
http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en
&oe=ASCII&user=6CcUv5UAAAAJ&pagesize=100&citation_for_view=6CcU
v5UAAAAJ:ldfaerwXgEUC
0 new messages