Notes

    1. Meta tags are rarely used by spammers since most search engines ignore meta tags due to spam issues

    2. We do not claim that the author of the example paper did duplicate spam. It is likely that Google was not able to identify the different pages as duplicates. However, this illustrates what duplicate spam might look like.

    3. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html

    4. http://harzing.com/pop.htm

    5. http://scholarometer.indiana.edu

    6. The amount of indexed files of a certain type (e.g. ppt) are identifiable via the search query “filetype:ppt”

    7. We took a sample of 10 presentations and Microsoft Word documents that contained citations and all citations in these files were counted.

    8. It could be that Google Scholar weights citations differently when using them for ranking articles. However, third parties parsing Google Scholar cannot identify any distinctions.

    9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

    10. Due to these recommendations we decided to withdraw the submitted papers.

    11. It has to be mentioned that we published this book under our real names. However, it would have been just as easy to publish it with a fake identity (though this would have violated the terms of service of the print on demand publisher).