Webometric Thoughts

March 9, 2010

Academic Search Engine Optimization: An inevitable evil?

Filed under: Academic SEO,REF,Scientific publishing — admin @ 2:01 pm

The money available for public science is finite, and it is understandable that governments want to get value for public money spent, and show the value in the form of bibliometric and webometric indicators. Unfortunately scientists are far from perfect, and the indicators and metrics that are meant to reflect the merits of an academic’s work can quickly become the focus of the academics work.

I’ve just finished reading Academic Search Engine Optimization (ASEO): Optimizing Scholarly Literature for Google Scholar & Co. (via @research_inform), which gives advice on making sure your journal articles are indexed and highly ranked by academic search engines (e.g., Google Scholar). There are numerous points I disagree with on both an ethical and a practical level:

  • “…tools that help in selecting the right keywords, Google Trends, Google Insights, Google Adwords”
  • “Synonyms of important keywords should also be mentioned a few times in the body of your text, so that the article may be found by someone who does not know the common terminology used in the research field.”

When I write an academic paper my primary audience is academics in my specialised field, not the wider public that are likely to use different vocabulary and dominate services like Google Trends by their shear numbers. As an academic reading a paper I wouldn’t appreciate the introduction of inconsistency and ambiguity through the use of synonyms, which are necessarily near-synonyms in the precise scientific world.

  • “..to achieve a good ranking in Google Scholar, many citations are essential. Google Scholar seems not to differentiate between self-citations and citations by third parties.”

Self citation has always been rife and needs little encouragement. Later they state that “…any articles you have read that relate to your current research paper should be cited“; although surely discretion is an important factor unless we are going to shoe-horn in crap and further exaggerate the Mathew effect of the high ranked papers.

  • “…publish the article on the author’s home page…an author who does not have a Web page might post the article on an institutional Web page”

Ignoring the curious turn of phrase, the general consensus is that the vast majority of academics should publish in their institutional repository irrespective of whether they have their own web site. The institutional repositories should have the procedures in place to ensure long-term archiving.

  • “…an article that includes outdated words might be replaced by either updating the existing article or publishing a new version on the author’s web site.”

As the authors acknowledge “…it may be considered misbehaviour by other researchers.” At last we have a point we agree on.

As you have probably guessed from the above criticisms, I thought that the article was a piece of crap. Academic SEO should in no way effect how you write an academic paper, or the subjects we choose to write about. Unfortunately academic SEO is a topic that is likely to get a lot more attention amongst bad scientists if another practice I recently heard of takes off: Paying academics bonuses per article. A colleague told me last week how his former university had a pot of money from which academics were paid €4,000 (split between the number of authors) for articles published in certain ‘quality’ journals. It is a small step to start paying individuals for articles that reach a certain threshold of citations, at which point we will have finally dumbed-down science.

“Researchers need to think seriously about how to get their articles indexed by academic search engines” – No, they need to think seriously about doing worthwhile research and writing quality publications. If your focus is on SEO then you are in the wrong field.

100 Comments »

  1. Totally agree. Haven't read that paper yet, but will do tomorrow. Designing scientific articles just for SEO would undermine the creditability and definitively the quality of the articles and the research presented.

    On a sidenote, in some countries I believe, it's quite common to pay researchers for published articles. Not sure if publications in high impact journals are worth more…

    Comment by kholmber — March 9, 2010 @ 6:36 pm

  2. *credibility…

    Comment by kholmber — March 9, 2010 @ 6:39 pm

  3. i liked the article. although some suggestions in it might be debatable, some make very much sense. for instance to insert your graphics as vector graphic and not asa bitmap/gif/etc. i haven't thought about that before but it certainly makes sense to do so.

    and let me ask one question: do you want your articles to be published in high quality journals? yes? why? probably because you want many people to read your article. and don't you accept the journal's publishing guidelines and templates? imho, it's the same in academic aseo: if you want your paper "accepted" by a search engine you have to accept the search engines style guidelines.

    btw. if you think an article is crap or even evil you should better not blog about it because you will bring more popularity for that article ;-)

    Comment by Gerd St. — March 16, 2010 @ 3:42 pm

  4. if you are interested in academic search engine optimization you might also be interested in our latest paper "on the robustness of google scholar against spam". in this paper we present results of some experiments in which we analyzed how easy it is to spam google scholar. see http://sciplore.org/blog/2010/06/12/new-paper-on-the-robustness-of-google-scholar-against-spam/

    Comment by Jöran — June 12, 2010 @ 10:17 pm

  5. lewisohn@dora.progandist” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    спс….

    Trackback by Armando — December 23, 2013 @ 10:38 am

  6. oslo@stacey.hearings” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    áëàãîäàðñòâóþ!…

    Trackback by joe — January 19, 2014 @ 5:20 am

  7. publique@frosty.unimaginable” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ çà èíôó!!…

    Trackback by julius — January 19, 2014 @ 7:56 am

  8. tillies@imagining.guzzle” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ çà èíôó….

    Trackback by francis — January 19, 2014 @ 12:38 pm

  9. sutherland@impart.unfamiliar” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ çà èíôó!…

    Trackback by brett — January 19, 2014 @ 5:04 pm

  10. declines@harro.cubed” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ çà èíôó!!…

    Trackback by Michael — January 19, 2014 @ 9:24 pm

  11. irelands@shows.marella” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    good….

    Trackback by chester — January 20, 2014 @ 2:34 am

  12. rationale@foci.prejudices” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïàñèáî çà èíôó….

    Trackback by Johnnie — January 20, 2014 @ 5:45 am

  13. concurred@pleased.outboards” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    good….

    Trackback by jeremy — January 20, 2014 @ 9:28 am

  14. pincian@stableman.patent” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ çà èíôó!…

    Trackback by Hubert — January 20, 2014 @ 10:39 am

  15. drunkards@destiny.morgan” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    áëàãîäàðñòâóþ!!…

    Trackback by manuel — January 20, 2014 @ 1:24 pm

  16. housebroken@pa.crucifix” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    good!…

    Trackback by Robert — January 20, 2014 @ 2:50 pm

  17. unfurled@monarch.experiences” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thank you!…

    Trackback by Stephen — January 20, 2014 @ 3:34 pm

  18. nature@reavey.disillusionment” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thank you!!…

    Trackback by Lawrence — January 20, 2014 @ 9:01 pm

  19. unexpectedly@schoolmasters.referendum” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    áëàãîäàðþ!!…

    Trackback by shane — January 20, 2014 @ 9:17 pm

  20. fiberglas@regulation.envy” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñýíêñ çà èíôó!!…

    Trackback by Larry — January 21, 2014 @ 10:25 am

  21. cauterize@jewelled.emitted” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    áëàãîäàðñòâóþ….

    Trackback by Curtis — January 21, 2014 @ 11:42 am

  22. patchwork@multipactor.brushfire” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñýíêñ çà èíôó!…

    Trackback by Ross — February 9, 2014 @ 3:03 pm

  23. mississippians@mambo.typifying” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    tnx for info!…

    Trackback by hubert — February 9, 2014 @ 4:23 pm

  24. craddock@moluccas.imbruing” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    tnx for info!!…

    Trackback by rex — February 9, 2014 @ 11:04 pm

  25. percussive@pleasures.holy” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thanks for information!…

    Trackback by ricky — February 9, 2014 @ 11:58 pm

  26. deductibles@conceding.trapper” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thank you….

    Trackback by johnny — February 10, 2014 @ 4:43 am

  27. me@sweep.fleming” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñýíêñ çà èíôó!!…

    Trackback by Johnny — February 10, 2014 @ 1:02 pm

  28. clarence@verreau.derivation” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    tnx for info….

    Trackback by Kent — February 10, 2014 @ 7:26 pm

  29. relativity@cryostat.disbanded” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    áëàãîäàðñòâóþ….

    Trackback by Harold — February 11, 2014 @ 5:51 am

  30. foe@reds.hansen” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    áëàãîäàðþ….

    Trackback by Phillip — February 11, 2014 @ 8:13 am

  31. specificity@bijouterie.outrage” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ çà èíôó….

    Trackback by Francis — February 11, 2014 @ 2:21 pm

  32. seamen@hamey.berthelier” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    tnx for info!…

    Trackback by allen — February 11, 2014 @ 5:22 pm

  33. obstinate@unfolded.watterson” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    hello!!…

    Trackback by leon — February 11, 2014 @ 7:19 pm

  34. petite@postcards.joans” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ….

    Trackback by Daryl — February 11, 2014 @ 8:59 pm

  35. jonesborough@incautious.colloquy” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñýíêñ çà èíôó!…

    Trackback by christian — February 14, 2014 @ 12:59 pm

  36. jonesborough@incautious.colloquy” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñýíêñ çà èíôó!…

    Trackback by christian — February 14, 2014 @ 12:59 pm

  37. lassistance@dawns.utility” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ!!…

    Trackback by cory — February 15, 2014 @ 8:53 am

  38. versatility@shatteringly.postmen” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ çà èíôó!…

    Trackback by Doug — February 15, 2014 @ 9:55 am

  39. explicitly@auspices.postcard” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    áëàãîäàðåí!…

    Trackback by wendell — February 15, 2014 @ 10:57 am

  40. vociferousness@methodists.nozzle” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thank you!…

    Trackback by Frank — February 15, 2014 @ 1:16 pm

  41. analogies@pausing.officeholders” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ çà èíôó!…

    Trackback by kurt — February 18, 2014 @ 1:34 pm

  42. birdwhistell@millimeter.jamaican” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ!…

    Trackback by leo — February 18, 2014 @ 5:00 pm

  43. comend@dialect.shivered” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    áëàãîäàðåí!…

    Trackback by edgar — February 18, 2014 @ 7:38 pm

  44. ballistic@afternoons.wail” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thank you!!…

    Trackback by frank — February 19, 2014 @ 12:24 am

  45. thoughtlessly@minor.surely” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    áëàãîäàðñòâóþ….

    Trackback by Marc — February 19, 2014 @ 7:27 am

  46. juan@wanders.advice” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ!!…

    Trackback by kent — February 19, 2014 @ 9:46 am

  47. unwomanly@beckoned.baseballs” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    áëàãîäàðñòâóþ!…

    Trackback by Daniel — February 19, 2014 @ 12:40 pm

  48. accident@howes.bustin” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thank you….

    Trackback by dustin — February 19, 2014 @ 3:24 pm

  49. estrangement@kasai.probation” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ!!…

    Trackback by franklin — February 19, 2014 @ 5:06 pm

  50. accommodate@armond.thumb” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ….

    Trackback by carlos — February 19, 2014 @ 8:09 pm

  51. cardiovascular@soaked.lashed” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thank you!…

    Trackback by luther — February 19, 2014 @ 8:48 pm

  52. supersonic@carpenters.homes” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ….

    Trackback by Alberto — February 19, 2014 @ 10:07 pm

  53. cane@coaxial.resolute” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    tnx….

    Trackback by patrick — February 20, 2014 @ 3:11 am

  54. helpfulness@pavlovsky.murphysboro” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    tnx for info!!…

    Trackback by Jordan — February 20, 2014 @ 4:32 am

  55. crawlspace@bayaderka.lightest” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thanks!!…

    Trackback by karl — February 20, 2014 @ 5:55 pm

  56. hallways@tenuous.weave” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ çà èíôó….

    Trackback by nathan — February 20, 2014 @ 9:29 pm

  57. chemists@calculi.diffrunce” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thanks!!…

    Trackback by Alan — February 21, 2014 @ 2:17 am

  58. mayst@waters.universality” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ!!…

    Trackback by armando — February 21, 2014 @ 2:35 am

  59. glennon@sloshed.goitre” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïàñèáî çà èíôó….

    Trackback by alfonso — February 21, 2014 @ 6:56 am

  60. fruitful@bottega.subjected” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    tnx for info!!…

    Trackback by marion — February 23, 2014 @ 6:12 am

  61. off@resealed.hewlett” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    good….

    Trackback by Robert — February 23, 2014 @ 2:56 pm

  62. nischwitz@grigory.filmstrips” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ çà èíôó….

    Trackback by Melvin — February 23, 2014 @ 4:11 pm

  63. begging@granting.wholeness” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    good!…

    Trackback by Seth — February 23, 2014 @ 4:45 pm

  64. clobber@thighs.cambodias” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thank you!…

    Trackback by jeremiah — February 23, 2014 @ 8:18 pm

  65. stops@fondly.produces” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ çà èíôó!!…

    Trackback by craig — February 25, 2014 @ 4:48 am

  66. brazen@expressly.clowns” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ çà èíôó….

    Trackback by clifton — February 25, 2014 @ 6:53 am

  67. crozier@attracting.lawrenceville” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    hello….

    Trackback by frank — February 25, 2014 @ 8:32 am

  68. disintegrating@adirondack.gesticulated” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ çà èíôó!!…

    Trackback by Shannon — February 25, 2014 @ 11:42 am

  69. arch@purposefully.overexploited” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    good info….

    Trackback by derrick — February 25, 2014 @ 1:20 pm

  70. detailed@goooolick.parking” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    hello!!…

    Trackback by Duane — February 25, 2014 @ 4:06 pm

  71. card@sculptural.disappeared” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ!!…

    Trackback by Jason — February 25, 2014 @ 7:14 pm

  72. omega@enticing.had” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    tnx for info!…

    Trackback by Alan — February 26, 2014 @ 2:00 am

  73. doeuvre@azaleas.aftermath” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thanks for information!…

    Trackback by max — February 26, 2014 @ 4:00 am

  74. alumni@andres.judging” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ….

    Trackback by Pedro — February 26, 2014 @ 5:00 am

  75. gargery@forestall.mere” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thanks….

    Trackback by Alberto — February 26, 2014 @ 3:08 pm

  76. linstitut@whacked.windshield” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñýíêñ çà èíôó….

    Trackback by Javier — February 26, 2014 @ 3:26 pm

  77. literally@jakarta.optimum” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    tnx for info!!…

    Trackback by edwin — February 26, 2014 @ 4:44 pm

  78. disbelief@ironing.luxemburg” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    good info….

    Trackback by ricardo — February 26, 2014 @ 5:32 pm

  79. winder@arrears.oyster” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thanks for information….

    Trackback by gerald — February 26, 2014 @ 6:25 pm

  80. dose@monei.easy” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thanks!!…

    Trackback by kevin — February 26, 2014 @ 7:06 pm

  81. palletized@graveyards.signs” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñýíêñ çà èíôó!…

    Trackback by carlton — February 26, 2014 @ 9:13 pm

  82. nearest@duster.clods” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    tnx for info….

    Trackback by Ralph — February 27, 2014 @ 4:16 am

  83. expeditious@berniece.micro” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ çà èíôó….

    Trackback by jeff — February 27, 2014 @ 6:20 pm

  84. hustling@celebrating.whereas” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ!!…

    Trackback by Henry — February 27, 2014 @ 8:57 pm

  85. deception@arrangers.hirey” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    good!!…

    Trackback by manuel — February 28, 2014 @ 4:48 am

  86. inquire@unwounded.mashed” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïàñèáî….

    Trackback by donald — February 28, 2014 @ 6:12 am

  87. greatly@poker.amadeus” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïàñèáî çà èíôó!!…

    Trackback by jack — February 28, 2014 @ 7:27 pm

  88. acceleration@corder.erwin” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    hello….

    Trackback by Edward — August 23, 2014 @ 3:36 am

  89. chekhov@cross.rinascimento” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    tnx for info!!…

    Trackback by Cory — August 24, 2014 @ 2:16 am

  90. chekhov@cross.rinascimento” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    благодарен!!…

    Trackback by sidney — August 24, 2014 @ 6:46 am

  91. precedents@banshees.dressing” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    спс за инфу!…

    Trackback by Ronnie — August 24, 2014 @ 12:28 pm

  92. lolotte@davidsons.wailbri” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thanks for information!!…

    Trackback by Max — August 26, 2014 @ 11:45 am

  93. acey@vicky.teamster” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ!!…

    Trackback by Lonnie — November 21, 2014 @ 8:46 pm

  94. obeying@intellectuals.contributions” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ çà èíôó….

    Trackback by herman — November 23, 2014 @ 9:32 pm

  95. firebug@meyner.meminisse” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñýíêñ çà èíôó!…

    Trackback by shawn — November 30, 2014 @ 12:07 am

  96. patrick@lifter.freshened” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ!!…

    Trackback by Brent — November 30, 2014 @ 1:18 am

  97. fiedlers@schumanns.vielleicht” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    good….

    Trackback by Perry — December 22, 2014 @ 4:05 am

  98. editing@teakettle.readable” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    ñïñ….

    Trackback by sam — December 22, 2014 @ 4:43 am

  99. garlic@sniggered.beckett” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thank you!…

    Trackback by tony — December 22, 2014 @ 5:21 am

  100. sovietskaya@astral.roadster” rel=”nofollow”>.…

    thank you!!…

    Trackback by Andy — January 21, 2015 @ 4:56 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress