Presentation at the (Foreign Language Education) FLExICT Conference at the Ritsumeikan University Osaka Ibaraki Campus on September 9, 2016. It shows how optimizing Google Scholar Profiles can enhance the academic recognition of individual researchers while contributing to improving the international rankings of their university.

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. 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
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).

4. 4ICU
Japan
QS Asia
300
WM
Japan
WM
World
SIR
Japan
SIR
Asia
SIR
World
Average
Japan
Kwansei
Gakuin
49 251-
300
82 1,850 151 667 2,018 94 (5)
Kansai 21 43 1,285 104 441 1,467 56 (4)
Doshi-
sha
22 201-
250
39 1,210 86 367 1,257 49 (3)
Ritsu-
meikan
44 181-
190
15 649 57 259 974 39 (2)
Kyoto
Sangyo
38 111 2,191 215 936 2,524 121 (7)
Kinki 41 181-
190
31 1,080 38 176 738 37 (1)
Konan 130 128 2,499 189 836 2,340 149 (8)
Ryu-
koku
28 71 1,690 187 828 2,327 95 (6)

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
top 300
rank
Faculty-
student
ratio
Citations
per
paper
Int’l
faculty
Int’l
stu-
dents
Papers
per
faculty
In-/Out-
bound
exchange
students
Advan-
tage
Kinki
(Kindai)
181-
190
63.3 90.4 37.1 5.3 22.2 4.4/
1.2-
Publi-
cations
Ritsu-
meikan
181-
190
24.9 34.5 71.5 30.3 14.9 4.9/
16.5
Int’l-
ization
Relative
to each
other &
Asia 300
Same Kinki
good,
Rits
weak
Kinki
excels,
Rits
weak
Rits
good,
Kinki
weak
Rits
better,
both
weak
Kinki
better,
both
weak
Rits
better,
both very
weak
Kinki
overall
advan-
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 (Web-
oriented) 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/us-
education-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

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. 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

13. 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

14. 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.
Webometrics 2012 global
university ranking criteria

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 drop-
down 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.
There is a presentation handout with step-by-step directions

16. 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, adding co-authors, and
manually adding publications that Google Scholar does not find.

17. Example of adding a publication manually to one’s Google Scholar Profile

18. Example Google Scholar Profile after some editing manually

19. 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.
For more info see: McCarty, S. (2015). University Website optimization and
Google Scholar for academic recognition. Osaka Jogakuin College Journal, 44,
17-29. Available at: http://www.waoe.org/steve/2015_kiyo_rombun.pdf