Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 114, Issue 1, pp 301–306 | Cite as

A few remarks on ResearchGate score and academic reputation

  • Sergio CopielloEmail author
  • Pietro Bonifaci
Article

Abstract

An article recently published in Scientometrics sheds light on the way ResearchGate works in calculating its RG score, which seems to be affected primarily by the members’ engagement in the social network environment, and only secondarily by publications. Here we show that the will to understand the rationale behind the score should also consider the ratio between full-text sources uploaded to the repository and publications. The finding supports the claim that the RG score is not a reliable indicator of scientific and academic reputation. Instead, it appears to be much more a tool to implement the entrepreneurial strategy of the RG’s owner company.

Keywords

Scholarly social network ResearchGate RG score Academic reputation Bibliometrics Altmetrics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Here we make use of some data that, for brevity’s sake, are not included in the text. Since we aim to improve our RG score, these data are freely available in our RG pages.

References

  1. Bornmann, L. (2016). Scientific revolution in scientometrics: The broadening of impact from citation to societal. In C. R. Sugimoto (Ed.), Theories of informetrics and scholarly communication (pp. 347–359). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110308464-020.Google Scholar
  2. Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2017). Does evaluative scientometrics lose its main focus on scientific quality by the new orientation towards societal impact? Scientometrics, 110(2), 937–943.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2200-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borrego, Á. (2017). Institutional repositories versus ResearchGate: The depositing habits of Spanish researchers. Learned Publishing, 30(3), 185–192.  https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Silva, P. U. K., & Vance, C. K. (2017). Scientific scholarly communication. Scientific scholarly communication: The changing landscape. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dewett, T., & Denisi, A. S. (2004). Exploring scholarly reputation: It’s more than just productivity. Scientometrics, 60(2), 249–272.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000027796.55585.61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Erdt, M., Nagarajan, A., Sin, S. C. J., & Theng, Y. L. (2016). Altmetrics: An analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1117–1166.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2077-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gumpenberger, C., Glänzel, W., & Gorraiz, J. (2016). The ecstasy and the agony of the altmetric score. Scientometrics, 108(2), 977–982.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1991-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haustein, S. (2016). Grand challenges in altmetrics: Heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. Scientometrics, 108(1), 413–423.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1910-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., Holmberg, K., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2016). Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(1), 232–238.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2014). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1145–1163.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1221-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Meckel, M. (2016). A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 765–775.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jamali, H. R. (2017). Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics, 112(1), 241–254.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2291-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jamali, H. R., & Nabavi, M. (2015). Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1635–1651.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1642-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D., & Herman, E. (2016). Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms. Research Evaluation, 25(1), 37–49.  https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jordan, K. (2015). Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric: Reflections and implications for practice. Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web (ASCW’15), 1–3. http://ascw.know-center.tugraz.at/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ASCW15jordanresponsekraker-lex.pdf%5CnCopyright. Accessed 13 June 2017.
  16. Kraker, P., & Lex, E. (2015). A critical look at the ResearchGate score as a measure of scientific reputation. In ASCW’15 Workshop at Web Science 2015, (May), 7–9.  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.35401.
  17. Kuo, T., Tsai, G. Y., Jim Wu, Y. C., & Alhalabi, W. (2017). From sociability to creditability for academics. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 975–984.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meishar-Tal, H., & Pieterse, E. (2017). Why do academics use academic social networking sites? International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(1), 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i1.2643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nentwich, M., & König, R. (2014). Academia goes Facebook? The potential of social network sites in the scholarly realm. Opening science (pp. 107–124). Cham: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nicholas, D., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Xu, J., Watkinson, A., Abrizah, A., et al. (2017). Where and how early career researchers find scholarly information. Learned Publishing, 30(1), 19–29.  https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nicholas, D., Clark, D., & Herman, E. (2016). ResearchGate: Reputation uncovered. Learned Publishing, 29(3), 173–182.  https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nicholas, D., Herman, E., Jamali, H. R., Bravo, B. R., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Dobrowolski, T., et al. (2015). New ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation. Learned Publishing, 28(3), 169–183.  https://doi.org/10.1087/20150303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Orduna-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2017). Do ResearchGate scores create ghost academic reputations? Scientometrics, 112(1), 443–460.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2396-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ortega, J. L. (2015). Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC’s members. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 39–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ortega, J. L. (2016). Social network sites for scientists (1st ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  26. Shrivastava, R., & Mahajan, P. (2015). Relationship amongst ResearchGate altmetric indicators and Scopus bibliometric indicators. New Library World, 116(9/10), 564–577.  https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-03-2015-0017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and Ten other social web services. PLoS ONE, 8(5), 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 876–889.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2017). ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size and impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(2), 468–479.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126–129.  https://doi.org/10.1038/512126a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang, X., Wang, Z., & Xu, S. (2013). Tracing scientist’s research trends realtimely. Scientometrics, 95(2), 717–729.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0884-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Winter, R. (2015). Interview with Ijad Madisch on “The future of publishing and discussing research”. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 57(2), 135–138.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0368-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control? Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on science and technology indicators (pp. 847–857).Google Scholar
  35. Yu, M. C., Wu, Y. C. J., Alhalabi, W., Kao, H. Y., & Wu, W. H. (2016). ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers? Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1001–1006.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Design and PlanningIUAV University of VeniceVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations