# Language Bias in the Google Scholar Ranking Algorithm
## 4 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Year**}} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Correlations for Searches by Year**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Year**}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**All Results**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Results for English**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Results for Non-English**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & **\#Items** & **R** & \(p\)**-Value** & **\#Items** & **R** & \(p\)**-Value** & **\#Items** & **R** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline
2000 & 995 & 0.8882 & 0.00000 & 920 & 0.9951 & 0.00000 & 75 & 0.3107 & 0.00666 \\ \hline
2001 & 993 & 0.8858 & 0.00000 & 922 & 0.9773 & 0.00000 & 71 & 0.3454 & 0.00318 \\ \hline
2002 & 995 & 0.8653 & 0.00000 & 921 & 0.9856 & 0.00000 & 74 & 0.2660 & 0.02200 \\ \hline
2003 & 993 & 0.8501 & 0.00000 & 908 & 0.9792 & 0.00000 & 85 & 0.2704 & 0.01231 \\ \hline
2004 & 989 & 0.8259 & 0.00000 & 903 & 0.9844 & 0.00000 & 86 & 0.3170 & 0.00294 \\ \hline
2005 & 993 & 0.8522 & 0.00000 & 908 & 0.9864 & 0.00000 & 85 & 0.2098 & 0.05394 * \\ \hline
2006 & 994 & 0.8391 & 0.00000 & 913 & 0.9907 & 0.00000 & 81 & 0.3894 & 0.00033 \\ \hline
2007 & 985 & 0.8158 & 0.00000 & 888 & 0.9687 & 0.00000 & 97 & 0.3751 & 0.00015 \\ \hline
2008 & 996 & 0.8529 & 0.00000 & 917 & 0.9867 & 0.00000 & 79 & 0.3370 & 0.00239 \\ \hline
2009 & 989 & 0.8528 & 0.00000 & 909 & 0.9885 & 0.00000 & 80 & 0.3810 & 0.00049 \\ \hline
2010 & 994 & 0.8557 & 0.00000 & 915 & 0.9928 & 0.00000 & 79 & 0.3291 & 0.00306 \\ \hline
2011 & 987 & 0.8592 & 0.00000 & 900 & 0.9926 & 0.00000 & 87 & 0.2599 & 0.01506 \\ \hline
2012 & 991 & 0.8640 & 0.00000 & 920 & 0.9897 & 0.00000 & 71 & 0.2347 & 0.04885 \\ \hline
2013 & 982 & 0.8658 & 0.00000 & 877 & 0.9790 & 0.00000 & 105 & 0.4430 & 0.00000 \\ \hline
2014 & 988 & 0.8431 & 0.00000 & 893 & 0.9817 & 0.00000 & 95 & 0.3374 & 0.00083 \\ \hline Total & 14,864 & & & & & & 1,250 & & \\ \hline Median & 996 & 0.8767 & 0.00000 & 962 & 0.9322 & 0.00000 & 182 & 0.3498 & 0.00000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\) Not statistically significant.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Correlations between ranking by citations and the GS native ranking for searches by year. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Author**}} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Correlations for Searches by Author**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Author**}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**All Results**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Results for English**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Results for Non-English**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & **\#Items** & **R** & \(p\)**-Value** & **\#Items** & **R** & \(p\)**-Value** & **\#Items** & **R** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \[PERSON] & 1000 & 0.6729 & 0.00000 & 929 & 0.8262 & 0.00000 & 71 & 0.3679 & 0.00159 \\ \[PERSON] & 1000 & 0.7821 & 0.00000 & 938 & 0.8954 & 0.00000 & 62 & 0.1047 & 0.41809 * \\ \[PERSON] & 1000 & 0.7796 & 0.00000 & 942 & 0.9160 & 0.0  
In the case of searches by keyword, some outcomes point to more moderate differences, but if we observe the correlations between the median values, the differences are again very high with values of 0.91 for documents in English and 0.05 for those in other languages, although this last value is not statistically significant (Table 8). In fact, most of the correlations of the results for documents in other languages are not statistically significant, another indication that we are dealing with two different distributions. If we take the overall data (Table 9) for all the searches and compare the correlations of the medians of the two rankings, we obtain values of 0.97 for the documents in English and of just 0.18 for those in other languages. The value of the correlation for all the data is, likewise, very high at 0.91. As discussed previously, this indicates that while the number of citations is a very important factor in the ranking algorithm, the low values recorded in the case of documents written in languages other than English shows that this factor is not being applied and, as a result, the behavior of the ranking algorithm is unusual in these cases.