{"word_count": 411, "character_count": 3408}
"Dear Colleagues,The purpose of this mail is to present our latest working paper, deposited onJuly 24, 2014.http://googlescholardigest.blogspot.com.es/2014/09/about-size-of-google-scholar-playing.html​​We propose the inextricable task of knowing the size of this huge black holelooks like Google Scholar (GS). Anyway, as the title of the document(​​About the size of Google Scholar: playing the numbers), we have begun tomake accounts and using 4 different empirical methods we estimate that thenumber of unique documents (different versions of a document are excluded)should not be less than 160 million (as of May 2014).Regardless of this particular outcome, which is itself significant (especiallywhen compared with other scientific databases, and that gives us key cluesabout the amount of scientific knowledge that can be searchable, found andaccessed to on the web), even more exciting is the methodological challenge ofthis assumption. It has not only forced us to devise various techniques formeasuring the size of this dark object that GS is, but ​also ​applying themwe have shed light, again, on various inconsistencies, uncertainties andlimitations of the search interface tools used by Google. In short, we havelearned more about what Google Scholar does or does not, and we want to shareit with you all.This research comes at a good time. We are not only almost celebrating the 10thanniversary of GS but also hearing some voices (from somewhere in Europe…)finally relying on the use of Google Scholar for scientific evaluation.Now, when empirical studies(http://googlescholardigest.blogspot.com.es/p/bibliography.html) demonstrateevery day that Google Scholar and its derivativesa) measure with similar credit to traditional bibliometric indicators,b) are the most used products by scientists(http://www.nature.com/news/online-collaboration-scientists-and-the-social-network-1.15711),​and​c) have unfortunately ended up with the competition (Microsoft Academic Searchis in an unexplained hibernation,http://googlescholardigest.blogspot.com.es/2014/04/empirical-evidences-microsoft-academic-search-dead.html)​.​seems that certain euphoria unleashed. We are pleased, better late thannever…However, without wanting to lower the aroused expectations, we emphasize thatthe problems of Google Scholar for scientific evaluation are not technical ormethodological (coverage, reliability and validity of the measures, recordsfiltering performance…). Seminal limitations are those related with:a) the ease with which GS indicators can be manipulated​(http://ec3noticias.blogspot.com.es/2014/01/google-scholar-wins-ravesbut-can-it-be.htmt),b) the transience of the results and measures (in many cases difficult toreplicate stably),c) the technological dependence on companies that develop tools that come andgo on the consumer product market(http://ec3noticias.blogspot.com.es/2014/04/la-new-new-horizontes.html-bibliometrics).Google Scholar enthusiasts are now welcome; meanwhile we will continuevigorously in which we already proposed several years ago: to reveal with“data” ​- ​and not mere opinions​ -​, the bowels of Google Scholar,and to reveal at the same time their strengths and weaknesses. So, like the oldserials published, we can only promise...TO BE CONTINUED…​Best,​Enrique Orduña-Malea​​Polytechnic University of Valencia​​​Emilio Delgado López-CózarUniversidad de Granada​" (SCHOLCOMM list)