Google Scholar

I am also having the same issue. The issue is, the citations of the
two articles are merged. The details of them are given below:

1. Image denoising based on non-local means filter and its method
noise thresholding, Signal, Image and Video Processing, Volume 7,
Issue 6 , pp 1211-1227, 2014 (DOI:10.1007/s11760-012-0389-y)

2. Image denoising based on gaussian/bilateral filter and its method
noise thresholding, Signal, Image and Video Processing, Volume 7,
Issue 6 ,pp 1159-1172, 2014 (DOI:10.1007/s11760-012-0372-7)

You can observe that, these 2 articles are published in the same issue
and volume of the same Journal. These 2 articles have different DOIs.
I am wondering why the citations of these two articles are merged even
though they have different citations and DOIs. I hope this can be
solved.

[Mod. note: I doubt it will be solved by posting here! -- mjh]

In article ,
" writes:

I am also having the same issue. The issue is, the citations of the
two articles are merged. The details of them are given below:

You should have quoted the issue. Was it Google Scholar Citations not
doing things right?

1. Image denoising based on non-local means filter and its method
noise thresholding, Signal, Image and Video Processing, Volume 7,
Issue 6 , pp 1211-1227, 2014 (DOI:10.1007/s11760-012-0389-y)

2. Image denoising based on gaussian/bilateral filter and its method
noise thresholding, Signal, Image and Video Processing, Volume 7,
Issue 6 ,pp 1159-1172, 2014 (DOI:10.1007/s11760-012-0372-7)

You can observe that, these 2 articles are published in the same issue
and volume of the same Journal. These 2 articles have different DOIs.
I am wondering why the citations of these two articles are merged even
though they have different citations and DOIs. I hope this can be
solved.

Sounds like my problem, though my articles were in different journals.
Basically, in my case, Google Article A and Google Article B both point
to the real article B in the "Scholar Articles". However, in both cases
the citations are mostly for (Google and real) article A. In the case
of Google Article A, the number of citations is crossed out and there is
an asterisk with a link indicating that something is wrong. It says
that this can be fixed by editing by hand, but there are two problems.
First, the change is automatically reverted (even if one has chosen the
option to get updates confirmed by email); second, real article A seems
completely unknown to Google Scholar, although it is not in an obscure
journal or anything.

Emails to the address supplied for the case that the FAQ doesn't have
the answer go unanswered. It looks like Google Scholar isn't interested
in fixing things like this.

Maybe mentioning this again will cause some reader who has some
connection to Google Scholar to get something done via talking to the
right people. If not, then maybe we should just forget Google Scholar
Citations.

Many people have noticed that it tends to have more than ADS. However,
this might be because not all of them are correct. ADS isn't complete,
but most citations listed there are real and one can actually contact a
human to get mistakes fixed and such requests are processed promptly.

My suggestion: Forget Google Scholar Citations and use ADS. Anyone
interested in bibliometry will know that the former is much worse than
the latter. Anyone using the former because of ignorance is not someone
you should want to work for anyway. :-)

For reference, Google Article A is

http://scholar.google.com/citations?...citation&hl=en
&oe=ASCII&user=6CcUv5UAAAAJ&pagesize=100&citation_ for_view=6CcU
v5UAAAAJqnbT2bcN3wC

and B is

http://scholar.google.com/citations?...citation&hl=en
&oe=ASCII&user=6CcUv5UAAAAJ&pagesize=100&citation_ for_view=6CcU
v5UAAAAJ:ldfaerwXgEUC