The impact of Google on discovering scholarly information: managing STM publishers’ visibility in Google

Abstract:

The purpose of this paper is to discuss Google visibility of five large STM publishers (Elsevier, Emerald Publishing, Springer, Taylor & Francis and John Wiley & Sons) with the aim to focus on and investigate various upcoming current issues and challenges of the publishing industry regarding discoverability, promotion strategies, competition, information-seeking behavior and the impact of new information technologies on scholarly information. The study is based on data retrieved through two commercial online tools specialized in retrieving and saving the data of the domain's visibility in search engines: SEMrush (“SEMrush – Online Visibility Management Platform”) and Ahrefs (“Ahrefs – SEO Tools & Resources To Grow Your Search Traffic”). All data gathering took place between April 15 and the May 29, 2019. The study exhibits the significance of Google visibility in the STM publishing industry taking into consideration current issues and challenges of the publishing activity. This is a “new” trend, certainly of great significance in the publishing industry. The research is conducted in this paper and the theoretical background will be offered to the study of this issue.

Keywords:

Search engine optimization; Discoverability; Promotion strategies; Search engine results; Search visibility; STM publishers

Full text:

PDF

How to cite:

Kostagiolas, P., Strzelecki, A., Banou, C., and Lavranos, C. (2020). The impact of Google on discovering scholarly information: managing STM publishers’ visibility in Google. Collection and Curation, 40(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1108/CC-01-2020-0002.

References:

1. Ahrefs (2020), “SEO tools & resources to grow your search traffic”, available at: https://ahrefs.com/ (accessed 15 January 2020).
2. Banou, C. (2017), “Re-inventing the book”, Challenges from the past for the Publishing Industry, Elsevier – Chandos Publishing, Cambridge, Oxford.
3. Beckwith, K. (2003), “Googled: the quest for visibility on the internet”, Learned Publishing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 277-283.
4. Case, D.O. and Given, L.M. (2016), Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs and Behavior, 4th ed., Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley.
5. Chi, Y.Y. (2014), “The e-volution of publishing: challenges and opportunities in the digital age”, Publishing Research Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 344-351.
6. Clark, G. and Phillips, A. (2014), Inside Book Publishing, 4th ed., Routledge, London and New York, NY.
7. Dickinson, Z. and Smit, M. (2015), “Being where the people are: the challenges and benefits of search engine visibility for public libraries”, Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 11-15.
8. Dickinson, Z. and Smit, M. (2016), “Canadian public libraries and search engines: barriers to visibility”, Aslib Journal of Information Management, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 589-606.
9. Frederiksen, L. (2015), “Exploring discovery”, Public Services Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 43-47.
10. French, R.B. and Fagan, J.C. (2019), “The visibility of authority records, researcher identifiers, academic social networking profiles, and related faculty publications in search engine results”, Journal of Web Librarianship, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 156-197.
11. Google (2020), “PyPI”, available at: https://pypi.org/project/google/ (accessed 15 January 2020).
12. Greco, A.N. (2013), The Book Publishing Industry, 2nd ed., Routledge, London and New York, NY.
13. Greco, A.N., Rodriguez, C. and Wharton, R. (2007), The Culture and Commerce of Publishing in the 21st Century, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
14. Griffiths, J.R. and Brophy, P. (2005), “Student searching behavior and the web: use of academic resources and Google”, Library Trends, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 539-554.
15. Guédon, J.C., Kramer, B., Laakso, M., Schmidt, B., Šimukovič, E., Hansen, J., Kiley, R., Kitson, A., van der Stelt, W., Markram, K. and Patterson, M. (2019), “Future of scholarly publishing and scholarly communication”, Report of the Expert Group to the European Commission, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union.
16. Hariri, N. (2011), “Relevance ranking on Google: are top ranked results really considered more relevant by the users?”, Online Information Review, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 598-610.
17. Hemminger, B.M., Lu, D., Vaughan, K.T.L. and Adams, S.J. (2007), “Information-seeking behavior of academic scientists”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58 No. 14, pp. 2205-2225.
18. Hunter, K., Virkler, S. and Sidi, R. (2007), “Disruptive technologies: taking STM publishing into the next era”, Serials: The Journal for the Serials Community, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 50-53.
19. hyperion-gray/googlespider (2020), “GitLab”, available at: https://gitlab.com/hyperion-gray/googlespider (accessed 15 January 2020).
20. Jamali, H.R. and Asadi, S. (2010), “Google and the scholar: the role of Google in scientists’ information-seeking behaviour”, Online Information Review, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 282-294.
21. Johnson, R., Watkinson, A. and Mabe, M. (2018), “The STM report: an overview of scientific and scholarly publishing”, International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, Hague.
22. Kesselman, M. and Watstein, S.B. (2005), “Google scholar™ and libraries: point/counterpoint”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 380-387.
23. Killoran, J.B. (2013), “How to use search engine optimization techniques to increase website visibility”, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 50-66.
24. Lapham, L.H. (1997), “Introduction to the MIT press edition: the eternal now”, in McLuhan, M. (Ed.), Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA and London, pp. 9-23.
25. Lee, S., Jang, W., Lee, E. and Oh, S.G. (2016), “Search engine optimization: a case study using the bibliographies of LG science land in Korea”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 197-206.
26. Lloyd, S. (2008), “A book publisher’s manifesto for the twenty-first century: how traditional publishers can position themselves in the changing media flows of a networked era”, Library Trends, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 30-42.
27. Luh, C.J., Yang, S.A. and Huang, T.L.D. (2016), “Estimating Google’s search engine ranking function from a search engine optimization perspective”, Online Information Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 239-255.
28. McLuhan, M. (1997), Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, MIT Press, Cambridge-MA and London.
29. Markland, M. (2006), “Institutional repositories in the UK: what can the Google user find there?”, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 221-228.
30. Marres, N. and Weltevrede, E. (2015), “Scraping the social? Issues in real-time research”, Journal of Cultural Economy, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 313-335.
31. Mayr, P. and Walter, A.K. (2007), “An exploratory study of Google scholar”, Online Information Review, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 814-830.
32. Michaels, K. (2015), “The evolving challenges and opportunities in global publishing”, Publishing Research Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
33. Miklosik, A., Evans, N., Zak, S. and Lipianska, J. (2019), “A framework for constructing optimisation models to increase the visibility of organizations’ information in search engines”, Information Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, p. 808.
34. Miller, L. (2007), “Reluctant capitalists”, Bookselling and the Culture of Consumption, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
35. Norris, M., Oppenheim, C. and Rowland, F. (2008), “Finding open access articles using Google, Google scholar, OAIster and OpenDOAR”, Online Information Review, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 709-715.
36. Okerson, A. (1996), “What academic libraries need in electronic content licenses: presentation to the STM library relations committee, STM annual general meeting, October 1, 1996 ”, Serials Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 65-69.
37. Phillips, A. (2014), Turning the Page. The Evolution of the Book, Routledge, London and New York, NY.
38. Poulos, M., Papavlasopoulos, S., Kostagiolas, P. and Kapidakis, S. (2017), “Prediction of the popularity from google trends using stationary control: the case of STM publishers”, 2017 Fourth International Conference on Mathematics and Computers in Sciences and in Industry (MCSI), IEEE, pp. 159-163.
39. Rzepa, H.S. and Murray-Rust, P. (2001), “A new publishing paradigm: STM articles as part of the semantic web”, Learned Publishing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 177-182.
40. Scrapeulous (2020), “Search engine scraping”, available at: https://scrapeulous.com/ (accessed 15 January 2020).
41. SEMrush (2020), “Online visibility management platform”, available at: www.SEMrush.com/ (accessed 15 January 2020).
42. Somerville, M.M. and Conrad, L.Y. (2013), “Discoverability challenges and collaboration opportunities within the scholarly communications ecosystem: a SAGE white paper update”, Collaborative Librarianship, Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 4.
43. Somerville, M.M. and and Conrad, L.Y. (2014), “Collaborative improvements in the discoverability of scholarly content: accomplishments, aspirations, and opportunities”, A SAGE White Paper, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA.
44. Somerville, M.M., Schader, B.J. and and Sack, J. (2012), “Improving the discoverability of scholarly content in the twenty-first century: collaboration opportunities for librarians, publishers, and vendors”, A SAGE White Paper, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, CA.
45. Statista (2020), “Global market share of search engines 2010-2019”, available at: www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/ (accessed 15 January 2020).
46. Striphas, T. (2009), “The late age of print”, Everyday Book Culture from Consumerism to Control, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
47. Strzelecki, A. (2019), “Website removal from search engines due to copyright violation”, Aslib Journal of Information Management, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 54-71.
48. Strzelecki, A. (2020), “Google medical update: why is the search engine decreasing visibility of health and medical information websites?”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 4, p. 1160.
49. Teixeira da Silva, J.A. and Dobránszki, J. (2016), “How authorship is defined by multiple publishing organizations and STM publishers”, Accountability in Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 97-122.
50. Thompson, J.B. (2010), “Merchants of culture”, The Publishing Business in the Twenty-First Century, Polity Press, Cambridge.
51. Umenhofer, L. (2019), “Gaining ground: Search engine optimization and its implementation on an indie book press”, Publishing Research Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 258-273.
52. Ware, M. (2006), Scientific Publishing in Transition: An Overview of Current Developments, Mark Ware Consulting, Bristol.
53. Ware, M. and Mabe, M. (2015), The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing, International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, Hague.
54. Wu, M.D. and Chen, S.C. (2014), “Graduate students appreciate google scholar, but still find use for libraries”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 375-389.
55. Zhang, J. and Dimitroff, A. (2005), “The impact of webpage content characteristics on webpage visibility in search engine results (part I)”, Information Processing & Management, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 665-690.
56. Zhu, J. and Kelley, J. (2015), “Collaborating to reduce content gaps in discovery: what publishers, discovery service providers, and libraries can do to close the gaps”, Science & Technology Libraries, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 315-328.

License:

Emerald allows authors to deposit their AAM under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial International Licence 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0). To do this, the deposit must clearly state that the AAM is deposited under this licence and that any reuse is allowed in accordance with the terms outlined by the licence. To reuse the AAM for commercial purposes, permission should be sought by contacting permissions@emeraldinsight.com.
For the sake of clarity, commercial usage would be considered as, but not limited to:

• Copying or downloading AAMs for further distribution for a fee;
• Any use of the AAM in conjunction with advertising;
• Any use of the AAM by for promotional purposes by for-profit organisations;
• Any use that would confer monetary reward, commercial gain or commercial exploitation.

Emerald appreciates that some authors may not wish to use the CC BY-NC licence; in this case, you should deposit the AAM and include the copyright line of the published article. Should you have any questions about our licensing policies, please contact permissions@emeraldinsight.com.