While Google Scholar is useful to find reliable research sources, it is increasingly used also to evaluate the academic output of individuals and higher education institutions. For an article published in 2013, the author investigated the criteria utilized by eight prominent higher education ranking organizations. Online factors, providing data that are convenient and economical to gather, such as the number of pages found by Google in a university’s domain on the open Web, were found to play an increasing role in the ranking criteria. When institutions, particularly in Japan, punch below their weight in national and international rankings, they could benefit from optimization strategies to align their Web presence with the algorithms by which their academic output is measured. Moreover, Google Scholar has the added dimension of data on individual authors who can, in the aggregate, contribute to the ranking of their institutions. Citations in particular, the gold standard of peer recognition, are utilized in rankings as counted by Google Scholar, but its automatic algorithms may find only a fraction of the citations to individuals’ publications. To remedy what individuals can affect, certain online formats and campus research repositories are recommended, while each individual author can develop a Google Scholar Profile for fuller recognition. The presenter has observed how new additions to a campus repository soon result in an uptick of citations found by Google Scholar. Participants will thus learn how to customize Google Scholar Profiles and other optimization strategies to raise their academic profile and that of their institutions.

2.  Introduction: international university rankings
 Education Ministry (MEXT) on how to rise in the rankings
 Kansai universities’ reputation vs. international rankings
 Online factors that academics can optimize
 Open Web presence and impact of the university site
 Online research repositories for faculty publications
 Surprising uses of Google Scholar
 Used by ranking organizations to evaluate universities
 It finds and links publications, and it counts citations
 It can be used to optimize faculty academic recognition
 How to set up and customize Google Scholar Profiles
 Conclusion: faculty-university mutual commitment

3. MEXT: “In order to rise in rankings,
it is necessary for researchers attached to
universities to do original studies, through which, among other things, their
published papers will be cited by other researchers” (author’s translation).
Yahoo News (2013, July 29). Daigaku sekai ranku iri shien, 10-ko 100-oku-en hojo
[￥10 billion to support the inclusion of 10 universities in world rankings]. Yomiuri
Shimbun. Retrieved from: http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20130729-00000620-yom-soci

4. 4ICU
Japan
QS Asia
300
WM
Japan
WM
World
SIR
Japan
SIR
Asia
SIR
World
Average
Japan
Kwansei
Gakuin
49
251300
82
1,850
151
667
2,018
94 (5)
Kansai
21
43
1,285
104
441
1,467
56 (4)
Doshisha
22
201250
39
1,210
86
367
1,257
49 (3)
Ritsumeikan
44
181190
15
649
57
259
974
39 (2)
Kyoto
Sangyo
38
111
2,191
215
936
2,524
121 (7)
Kinki
41
31
1,080
38
176
738
37 (1)
Konan
130
128
2,499
189
836
2,340
149 (8)
Ryukoku
28
71
1,690
187
828
2,327
95 (6)
181190

5. Sources, author’s translations and notes
“KAN-KAN-DO-RITS 関関同立(Kwansei Gakuin University, Kansai University,
Doshisha University, and Ritsumeikan University) is the abbreviation that many
people refer to when talking about the four leading private universities in the
region (of 20 million people…” from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritsumeikan_University
「これら各大学は、関西・西日本における難関私立大学として知られている」
from http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/関関同立
[It means that KanKanDoRits are known as competitive-entry private universities
in the Kansai region and Western Japan]
「西日本、関西圏における中堅私立大学として知られている」
from http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/産近甲龍
[It means that SanKinKoRyu are known as mainstay private universities in Kansai]
University ranking organizations
4ICU = 4 International Colleges & Universities, Japan from http://www.4icu.org/jp
QS = Quacquarelli Symonds, QS University Rankings: Asia top 300, from
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/asian-university-rankings/2013
WM = Webometrics [impact is 50% and means backlinks to the university’s official
Web domain], Japan & World from http://www.webometrics.info/en/Asia/Japan
SIR = SCImago [includes government & corporate research institutes], Japan, Asia,
& World from http://www.scimagoir.com/pdf/SIR%20Global%20JPN%202013%20O.pdf

6. QS Asia Facultytop 300 student
rank
ratio
Citations
per
paper
Int’l
faculty
Int’l
students
Papers In-/Out- Advanper
bound
tage
faculty exchange
students
Kinki
(Kindai)
181190
63.3
90.4
37.1
5.3
22.2
4.4/
1.2-
Publications
Ritsumeikan
181190
24.9
34.5
71.5
30.3
14.9
4.9/
16.5
Int’lization
Relative
to each
other &
Asia 300
Same
Kinki
good,
Rits
weak
Kinki
excels,
Rits
weak
Rits
good,
Kinki
weak
Rits
better,
both
weak
Kinki
Rits
Kinki
better,
better,
overall
both both very advanweak
weak
tage

7. Sources, notes, and findings
 Most ranking organizations do not disclose their proprietary formulae, such as
weighting of criteria.
 QS includes academic & employer reputation, but data are not disclosed.
 QS lists Kinki right above Rits in the 181-190 range, with a numerical advantage
overall in the criteria, i.e., faculty-student ratio, publications & internationalization.
 In the previous chart, 4ICU & SCImago gave Kinki the advantage, while (Weboriented) WM rated Rits highly.
 The above chart suggests that papers and citations gave Kinki the advantage.
 Although the London Times lists only a global top 400, regarding its weighting:
“The biggest proportion of a university’s ranking - a third - comes from how
frequently its research is cited by academics.”
Bushra, S. (2013, October 2). Asian universities catch up with U.S., Britain: annual
index. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/02/useducation-universities-idUSBRE99114Q20131002
Cf. also http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings

8. Interpretation and recommendations
How can these findings be interpreted?
 Have the reputations of well-known Kansai universities fossilized?
 Or does the Web presence of some universities not fit with the ranking
criteria and Google algorithms by which their academic output is measured?
The above findings and heavy weighting of publications suggested by the
London Times support the conclusion that the KanKanDoRitsu universities
punch below their weight compared to Kindai because of a lack of faculty
publications, citations, or recognition thereof.
Then what can university stakeholders do for fuller academic recognition?
Not to game the system, but knowing that rankings are conducted mostly
online, optimize the university’s Web presence to align with the media and
algorithms by which academic output is now measured. Let all affiliated
stakeholders, including part-time teachers, contribute to the university
Website. The rest of this presentation provides further recommendations,
with more details in the handout.

9. According to criteria of ranking organizations and Google Scholar:
 Publish more content of all kinds
 on the open Web, not password-protected
 in the main campus domain, e.g., www.xyz.ac.jp/subdomain/article.pdf
 English or multilingual versions of articles, abstracts & keywords
 Interlink all Web content
 Standardize spellings of individuals and university names
 Format online publications and presentations in PDF / rich files
 Format articles to match Google Scholar algorithms
See the handout later for details
McCarty, S. (2013). Web presence and higher education rankings. Online Education
Insights, 5 (1). Retrieved from http://www.waoe.org/WP/?page_id=183

10.  Reprint faculty papers on the open Web
 Need permission to reprint closed publications
 Affect the size of the university’s measured academic output
 Attract links and citations, which can raise the university’s ranking
 Use open source research repository software (next slide)
 Are interoperable with Google Scholar, CiNii in Japan, etc.
 Such data are also used by university ranking organizations
 Increase exposure, backlinks (a measure of impact), etc.
 Citations tend to be more numerous to open access publications
 Also interoperable are repositories such as http://www.getcited.org
and http://www.academia.edu
Butler, K. (2013). Scientists who share data
publicly receive more citations. UPI Science News.
Retrieved from http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Blog/2013/10/01/
Scientists-who-share-data-publicly-receive-more-citations/7861380637421

11. A presentation saved in PDF
format becomes available to
download, found by other
repositories and Google
Scholar, then possibly cited.

12. The usual use of Google Scholar is to find reliable sources for research.
Search results show the disciplinary context of a phrase, citations to
articles, formats for references, and who is doing similar research.
From http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en

13. Webometrics 2012 global
university ranking criteria
Google Scholar is used by ranking organizations to evaluate university academic
output. It compiles data on the publications and citations of individual authors.
However, citations are selectively and incompletely counted online. Thus the
chief recommendation for universities is for all faculty members who publish
to set up and customize their own Google Scholar Profile.

14. Example Google Scholar Profile: The focus is on citations. It handles various
languages. A verifiable academic e-mail address is necessary. Articles can be
sorted by most cited (the default) or in reverse chronological order (click on
“Year”). Customization includes specializations, co-authors (invited by email), and manually adding publications that Google Scholar does not find.

15. Start at http://scholar.google.com or http://scholar.google.co.jp (日本語で)
Click on Sign in, log into your Google account if necessary, and apply to
set up a Google Scholar Profile using your main academic e-mail
address, such as User_ID@xyz.ac.jp
To customize, click on links or choose among “Actions” from the dropdown menu on your profile page.
Your Profile, which is indexed with a high weight in Google search
results, can serve as an online list of publications, updated automatically
and manually throughout your career.
See the handout later for step-by-step directions

16. Example of a Google Scholar Profile sorted in reverse chronological order

17. After clicking on the title of a publication in the profile, fuller details appear.
In the profiles only the first initials of authors are used. “Scholar articles” are
versions found automatically, while the above sections were added manually.

18. After clicking on “Edit” (previous slide) or “Add” and then “Add article
manually” from the Profile page, fill in the text boxes to make changes
or to add new publications (above example of an online article).

19. Citations
 Gold standard of peer review.
 Average number of citations is about 1.5 per publication in databases, so
it is a lifelong journey.
 Google Scholar cannot find all the citations to a scholarly publication,
but more tend to be found if Google Scholar Profiles are manually updated
and if papers are placed online, particularly in research repositories. An
uptick in citations found by Google Scholar has been seen to closely follow
new additions to a campus repository.
 Authors who cite one’s publications may be helpful for one’s research.
 Open access publications tend to be found and could be cited more than
more prestigious publications that are strictly kept offline. This may
eventually tilt the field toward openness.
 Rory McGreal (UNESCO/COL OER Chair): “if you have to pay, it is a scam.”
From http://landing.athabascau.ca/blog/view/359416/scam-open-access-journals

20. Conclusions and Recommendations
 Many Japanese universities are punching below their weight due to a lack of
citations (MEXT, 2013) and rich content including English on their Website, so be a
faculty hero by helping optimize academic accomplishments for fuller recognition.
 Universities hurt their rankings by high teacher turnover and part-time hiring.
 Attractiveness to foreign students (reputation) is affected by rankings abroad.
 Have an open source online campus research repository of faculty publications.
 Have all affiliated scholars who publish maintain a Google Scholar Profile. Keep
it academically honest, for example by combining or eliminating mistaken entries.
 Optimize as well as maximize Web presence.
 Have all campus Website pages interlinked, and encourage links from other
domains by providing faculty homepages and useful community services.
 Show abundance and openness rather than scarcity and exclusiveness.
 University-faculty mutual commitment is a key point: universities that
treat their stakeholders better can rise higher in the global rankings.
See the handout for details