Web Science and Digital Libraries Research Group

Google Scholar has long been regarded as a digital library containing the most complete collection of scholarly papers and patterns. For a digital library, completeness is very important because otherwise, you cannot guarantee the citation rate of a paper, or equivalently the in-link of a node in the citation graph. That is probably why Google Scholar is still more widely used and trusted than any other digital libraries with fancy functions. Today, I found two very interesting aspects of Google Scholar, one is clever and one is silly. The clever side is that Google Scholar distinguishes papers, preprints, and slides and count citations of them separately. If you search "DeepLab: Semantic Image Segmentation with Deep Convolutional Nets, Atrous Convolution, and Fully Connected CRFs", you may see the same view as I attached. Note that there are three results. The first is a paper on IEEE. The second actually contains a list of completely different authors. These people ...

I highly encourage all scientific news or reports cite corresponding articles. ScienceAlert usually does a good job on this. This piece of scientific news from ScienceAlert discovers two Rogue planets.  Most planets we discovered rotate around a star. A Rogue planet does not rotate around a star, but the center of the Galaxy. Because planets do not emit light, Rogue planets are extremely hard to detect. This piece of news cites a recently published paper on arXiv . Although anybody can publish papers on arXiv. Papers published by reputable organizations should be reliable. A reliable citation is beneficial for all parties. It makes the scientific news more trustable. It gives credits to the original authors. It could also connect readers to a place to explore other interesting science. Jian Wu