Paper detail

Who Should Google Scholar Update More Often?

We consider a resource-constrained updater, such as Google Scholar, which wishes to update the citation records of a group of researchers, who have different mean citation rates (and optionally, different importance coefficients), in such a way to keep the overall citation index as up to date as possible. The updater is resource-constrained and cannot update citations of all researchers all the time. In particular, it is subject to a total update rate constraint that it needs to distribute among individual researchers. We use a metric similar to the age of information: the long-term average difference between the actual citation numbers and the citation numbers according to the latest updates. We show that, in order to minimize this difference metric, the updater should allocate its total update capacity to researchers proportional to the $square$ $roots$ of their mean citation rates. That is, more prolific researchers should be updated more often, but there are diminishing returns due to the concavity of the square root function. More generally, our paper addresses the problem of optimal operation of a resource-constrained sampler that wishes to track multiple independent counting processes in a way that is as up to date as possible.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.