20 years of Google Scholar

The best thing, by a long way, that Google Scholar has achieved is denying Elsevier & co a monopoly on academic search.

In most universities here in New Zealand, articles have to be published in a journal indexed by Elsevier's Scopus. Not in a Scopus-indexed journal, it does not count anymore than a reddit comment. This gives Elsevier tremendous power. But in CS/ML/AI most academics and students turn to Google Scholar first when doing searches.

Yet it still participates and encourages the bibliometrics game, which benefits the big publishers.

A simple way to make a step away from encouraging bibliometrics (which would be a step in the right direction) would be to list publications by date (most recent first) on authors pages rather than by citations count, or at least to let either users and/or authors choose the default sorting they want to use (when visiting a page for users, for their page by default for authors).

> the bibliometrics game

Bibliometrics, in use for over 150 years now, is not a game. That's like arguing there is no value in the PageRank algorithm, and no validity to trying to find out which journals or researchers or research teams publish better content using evidence to do so.

> which benefits the big publishers

Ignoring that it helps small researchers seems short sighted.

> A simple way to make a step ... would be to list publications by date

It's really that hard to click "year" and have that sorted?

It's almost a certainty when someone is looking for a scholar, they are looking for more highly cited work than not, so the default is probably the best use of reader times. I absolutely know when I look up an author, I am interested in what other work they did that is highly regarded more than any other factor. Once in a while I look to see what they did recently, which is exactly one click away.

To be fair, you did hedge and say "almost a certainty" and maybe that's true. But speaking for myself, I generally couldn't care less about citation count. If anything, my interest in a document may be inversely proportional to the citation count. And that's because I'm often looking for either a. "lost gems" - things are are actually great/useful research, but that got overlooked for whatever reason, or b. historical references to obscure topics that I'm deep-diving into.

BUT... I'm not in formal academia, I care very little about publishing research myself (at least not from a bibliometric perspective. For me "publishing" might be writing a blog post or maybe submitting a pre-print somewhere) so I'm just not part of that whole (racket|game|whatever-you-want-to-call-it).

Since it trivially does what you want with one click, and you’re not the audience, why the bizarre hatred of something you don’t understand?

It works great for its audience, likely better than any other product. Do you think your desire for rare outweighs the masses that don’t? If you want rare, why even use a tool designed for relevant? Go dig through the stacks at your favorite old library, bookstore, cellar, wherever.

I’d suspect if you were handed random low citation count articles you’d soon find they are not gems. They’re not cited for a reason.

Heck, want low citation count items? Go find a list of journal rankings (well crap, more rankings…) in the field you’re interested in, take the lowest rated ones, and go mine those crap journals for gems. Voila! Problem solved.

And I bet you find why they’re low ranked searching for gems in slop.