Comparing Manually Added Research Labels and Automatically Extracted Research Keywords to Identify Specialist Researchers in Learning Analytics: A Case Study Using Google Scholar Researcher Profiles

Google Scholar (GS) has an interesting feature that allows researchers to manually assign certain research keywords to their profiles, referred to as research labels. These research labels may be used to find out and filter relevant resources, such as publications and authors. However, using manuall...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Applied sciences 2023-06, Vol.13 (12), p.7172
Main Author: Aljohani, Naif Radi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Algorithms
Analysis
Bibliometrics
Careers
Case studies
Computational linguistics
Data mining
Keywords
Knowledge
Labels
Language processing
Learning
Learning analytics
Natural language interfaces
NLP
Research methodology
Researchers
Search engines
Sustainability
text analytics
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Google Scholar (GS) has an interesting feature that allows researchers to manually assign certain research keywords to their profiles, referred to as research labels. These research labels may be used to find out and filter relevant resources, such as publications and authors. However, using manually appended research labels for identification may have limitations in terms of consistency, timeliness, objectivity, and mischaracterization. This paper aims to explore the difference between manually assigned research labels and automatically extracted keywords for identifying specialist Learning Analytics (LA) researchers. For this study, data were collected on 4732 publications from 1236 authors displaying “Learning Analytics” in their public GS profile labels, using their most cited publications since 2011. Our analysis methodology involved various text-mining techniques such as cosine similarity and text matching. The results showed that 446 of the 1236 authors were specialist researchers, 643 were occasional researchers, and 90 were interested researchers. The most interesting finding, using our methodology, was identifying 10 early career researchers independent of their GS citation count. Overall, while manually added research labels may provide some useful information about an author’s research interests, they should be used with caution and in conjunction with another source of information such as automatically extracted keywords to identify accurately specialist learning analytics researchers.
ISSN:2076-3417
2076-3417
DOI:10.3390/app13127172