Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 119, Issue 2, pp 1255–1262 | Cite as

ResearchGate Score, full-text research items, and full-text reads: a follow-up study

  • Sergio CopielloEmail author
  • Pietro Bonifaci
Article
  • 91 Downloads

Abstract

This contribution focuses on the scholarly social network ResearchGate (RG). We take the cue from a recent change in the information shown on each researcher’s profile page, which now discloses the number of full-text reads, in addition to the already provided number of overall reads. Building on the findings of two previous studies (Orduna-Malea et al. in Scientometrics 112(1):443–460, 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2396-9; Copiello and Bonifaci in Scientometrics 114(1):301–306, 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2582-9), we delve into the relationship among full-text research items uploaded in that platform, full-text reads of the same items, and the so-called RG Score. The dataset examined here provides conflicting results. Firstly, the number of full-text publications and reads is significantly different, along with the RG Score, for the analyzed samples. Secondly, the RG Score implicitly rewards the ratio between the full-texts available to users and total research items. Moreover, the same score seems to be affected to a greater degree by the level of overall reads. However, apart from an indirect relationship, it does not reward how much attention the full-texts get in comparison to the other research items featured in the scholars’ profile pages.

Keywords

Scholarly social networks ResearchGate RG Score Literature repository Full-text research items Full-text reads 

Notes

Acknowledgements

About the storage of full-text articles in RG, we do not thank Elsevier for the profusion of “claimed infringement notices” we got in our mailboxes during the last months, hindering our attempt to raise our RG Score.

Supplementary material

11192_2019_3063_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (35 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 34 kb)

References

  1. Banshal, S. K., Singh, V. K., Kaderye, G., Muhuri, P. K., & Sánchez, B. P. (2018). An altmetric analysis of scholarly articles from India. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 34(5), 3111–3118.  https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-169495.Google Scholar
  2. 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: De Gruyter.  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110308464-020.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Copiello, S., & Bonifaci, P. (2018). A few remarks on ResearchGate Score and academic reputation. Scientometrics, 114(1), 301–306.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2582-9.Google Scholar
  6. De Silva, P. U. K., & Vance, C. K. (2017). Scientific scholarly communication: The changing landscape. Cham: Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50627-2.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Djonov, E., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2018). Social media as semiotic technology and social practice: The case of ResearchGate’s design and its potential to transform social practice. Social Semiotics, 28(5), 641–664.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2018.1504715.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Kadriu, A. (2013). Discovering value in academic social networks: A case study in ResearchGate. In Proceedings of the ITI 2013 35th international conference on information technology interfaces (pp. 57–62). Zagreb: University Computing Centre - SRCE.  https://doi.org/10.2498/iti.2013.0566.
  18. Kraker, P., & Lex, E. (2015). A critical look at the ResearchGate Score as a measure of scientific reputation. ASCW’15 workshop at web science 2015, (May), 7–9.  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.35401.
  19. Kramer, B., & Bosman, J. (2016). Innovations in scholarly communication—Global survey on research tool usage. F1000Research, 5, 692.  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8414.1.Google Scholar
  20. Lepori, B., Thelwall, M., & Hoorani, B. H. (2018). Which US and European Higher Education Institutions are visible in ResearchGate and what affects their RG score? Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 806–818.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.07.001.Google Scholar
  21. Liu, X. Z., & Fang, H. (2018). Which academic papers do researchers tend to feature on ResearchGate? Information Research, 23(1). http://www.informationr.net/ir/23-1/paper785.html.
  22. Manca, S. (2017). An analysis of ResearchGate and Academia.edu as socio-technical systems for scholars’ networked learning: A multilevel framework proposal. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 20–34.  https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/985.Google Scholar
  23. Manca, S. (2018). ResearchGate and Academia.edu as networked socio-technical systems for scholarly communication: A literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 26(1063519), 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2008.Google Scholar
  24. Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). Author-level metrics in the new academic profile platforms: The online behaviour of the Bibliometrics community. Journal of Informetrics, 12(2), 494–509.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.04.001.Google Scholar
  25. Meier, A., & Tunger, D. (2018). Investigating the transparency and influenceability of altmetrics using the example of the RG score and the ResearchGate platform. Information Services & Use, 38(1–2), 99–110.  https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-180001.Google Scholar
  26. Meishar-Tal, H., & Pieterse, E. (2017). Why do academics use academic social networking sites? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(1), 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i1.2643.Google Scholar
  27. Memisevic, H., Taljic, I., & Hadziomerovic, A. (2017). Making use of H-index: The Shape of Science at the University of Sarajevo. Acta Informatica Medica, 25(3), 187.  https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2017.25.187-190.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. Nicholas, D., Clark, D., & Herman, E. (2016). ResearchGate: Reputation uncovered. Learned Publishing, 29(3), 173–182.  https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1035.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Nicholas, D., Herman, E., Xu, J., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Abdullah, A., Watkinson, A., et al. (2018). Early career researchers’ quest for reputation in the digital age. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 49(4), 375–396.  https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.49.4.01.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. Ortega, J. L. (2016). Social network sites for scientists (1st ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  36. Raffaghelli, J. E., & Manca, S. (2018). Exploring the geographies of academic social network sites from a socio-technical perspective : An investigation of scientific literature in Spanish of scientific literature in Spanish. In M. Bajić, N. Dohn, M. de Laat, P. Jandrić, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th international conference on networked learning. Zagreb.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2.Google Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126–129.  https://doi.org/10.1038/512126a.Google Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Yan, W., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Research universities on the ResearchGate social networking site: An examination of institutional differences, research activity level, and social networks formed. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 385–400.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.002.Google Scholar
  46. Yan, W., Zhang, Y., & Bromfield, W. (2018). Analyzing the follower–followee ratio to determine user characteristics and institutional participation differences among research universities on ResearchGate. Scientometrics, 115(1), 299–316.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2637-6.Google Scholar
  47. Yi, S., Liu, Q., & Yan, W. (2018). How corporations utilize academic social networking website? A case study of health & biomedicine corporations. In H. Chen, Q. Fang, D. Zeng, & J. Wu (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 325–331). Cham: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03649-2_32.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureIUAV University of VeniceVeniceItaly
  2. 2.Veneto Museum CentreMinistry of Cultural Heritage and ActivitiesVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations