Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate

  • Sergio CopielloEmail author


The scholarly social network ResearchGate (RG) started promoting a new composite indicator: Research Interest. That score is built upon a weighting scheme of citations, recommendations, full-text reads, and other reads by RG members. Here I show that the indicator suffers from, at least, two significant issues, which undermine its utility as an alternative metric. Lack of transparency is the former since there are clues that its underlying algorithm is more complex than what is known according to the information conveyed by RG. Redundancy is another issue because the score is essentially driven by the number of citations and seems to bring negligible additional knowledge in the altmetrics landscape.


Scholarly social networks ResearchGate Altmetrics RG Research Interest score RG Score 


  1. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723. Scholar
  2. Akaike, H. (2011). Akaike’s information criterion. In M. Lovric (Ed.), International encyclopedia of statistical science (pp. 25–25). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Scholar
  3. 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. Scholar
  4. Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., Milojević, S., Peters, I., & Wolfram, D. (2018). Peer review, bibliometrics and altmetrics—Do we need them all? Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 55(1), 653–656. Scholar
  5. Bornmann, L., Haunschild, R., & Adams, J. (2019). Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF). Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 325–340. Scholar
  6. Borrego, Á. (2017). Institutional repositories versus ResearchGate: The depositing habits of Spanish researchers. Learned Publishing, 30(3), 185–192. Scholar
  7. Copiello, S., & Bonifaci, P. (2018). A few remarks on ResearchGate score and academic reputation. Scientometrics, 114(1), 301–306. Scholar
  8. Copiello, S., & Bonifaci, P. (2019). ResearchGate score, full-text research items, and full-text reads: A follow-up study. Scientometrics, 119(2), 1255–1262. Scholar
  9. Deng, S., Tong, J., & Fu, S. (2018). Interaction on an academic social networking sites: A study of ResearchGate Q&A on library and information science. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE on joint conference on digital librariesJCDL’18 (pp. 25–28). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
  10. 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. Scholar
  11. Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1975). Unit weighting schemes for decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(2), 171–192. Scholar
  12. 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. Scholar
  13. Everitt, B. S., & Skrondal, A. (2010). The Cambridge dictionary of statistics (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Galligan, F., & Dyas-Correia, S. (2013). Altmetrics: Rethinking the way we measure. Serials Review, 39(1), 56–61. Scholar
  15. González-Valiente, C. L., Pacheco-Mendoza, J., & Arencibia-Jorge, R. (2016). A review of altmetrics as an emerging discipline for research evaluation. Learned Publishing, 29(4), 229–238. Scholar
  16. Görögh, E., Sifacaki, E., Vignoli, M., Gauch, S., Blümel, C., Kraker, P., et al. (2017). Opening up new channels for scholarly review, dissemination, and assessment. In Proceedings of the 13th international symposium on open collaborationOpenSym’17 (pp. 1–11). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
  17. Greifeneder, E., Pontis, S., Blandford, A., Attalla, H., Neal, D., & Schlebbe, K. (2018). Researchers’ attitudes towards the use of social networking sites. Journal of Documentation, 74(1), 119–136. Scholar
  18. Gu, F., & Widén-Wulff, G. (2011). Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media: A Finnish case study. The Electronic Library, 29(6), 762–776. Scholar
  19. Gumpenberger, C., Glänzel, W., & Gorraiz, J. (2016). The ecstasy and the agony of the altmetric score. Scientometrics, 108(2), 977–982. Scholar
  20. Haustein, S. (2016). Grand challenges in altmetrics: heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. Scientometrics, 108(1), 413–423. Scholar
  21. 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. Scholar
  22. 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. Scholar
  23. Haustein, S., Sugimoto, C., & Larivière, V. (2015). Guest editorial: Social media in scholarly communication. Aslib Journal of Information Management. Scholar
  24. Herman, E., & Nicholas, D. (2019). Scholarly reputation building in the digital age: An activity-specific approach. Review article. El Profesional de La Información, 28(1), 1–31. Scholar
  25. Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. Scholar
  26. 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. Scholar
  27. Jamali, H. R. (2017). Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics, 112(1), 241–254. Scholar
  28. 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. Scholar
  29. Jeng, W., DesAutels, S., He, D., & Li, L. (2017). Information exchange on an academic social networking site: A multidiscipline comparison on researchgate Q&A. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(3), 638–652. Scholar
  30. 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) (pp. 1–3). Retrieved from
  31. 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.
  32. Kjellberg, S., Haider, J., & Sundin, O. (2016). Researchers’ use of social network sites: A scoping review. Library & Information Science Research, 38(3), 224–234. Scholar
  33. 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) (pp. 7–9).
  34. 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. Scholar
  35. Liu, X. Z., & Fang, H. (2018). Which academic papers do researchers tend to feature on researchgate? Information Research, 23(1).
  36. 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. Scholar
  37. Manca, S. (2018). ResearchGate and as networked socio-technical systems for scholarly communication: A literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 26(1063519), 1–16. Scholar
  38. 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. Scholar
  39. 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. Scholar
  40. 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. Scholar
  41. 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. Scholar
  42. Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research, 246(1), 1–19. Scholar
  43. Nentwich, M., & König, R. (2014). Academia goes Facebook? The potential of social network sites in the scholarly realm. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science (pp. 107–124). Cham: Springer. Scholar
  44. 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. Scholar
  45. Nicholas, D., Clark, D., & Herman, E. (2016a). ResearchGate: Reputation uncovered. Learned Publishing, 29(3), 173–182. Scholar
  46. Nicholas, D., Herman, E., & Clark, D. (2016b). Scholarly reputation building: How does ResearchGate fare? International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology, 6(2), 67–92. Scholar
  47. 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. Scholar
  48. 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. Scholar
  49. 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. Scholar
  50. Ortega, J. L. (2015a). Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Information Review, 39(4), 520–536. Scholar
  51. Ortega, J. L. (2015b). Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC’s members. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 39–49. Scholar
  52. Ortega, J. L. (2016). Social network sites for scientists (1st ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  53. Ortega, J. L. (2017). Toward a homogenization of academic social sites: A longitudinal study of profiles in, Google Scholar citations and ResearchGate. Online Information Review, 41(6), 812–825. Scholar
  54. Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A., et al. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1926), 4039–4056. Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing, 24(3), 183–195. Scholar
  57. Shrivastava, R., & Mahajan, P. (2015). Relationship amongst ResearchGate altmetric indicators and Scopus bibliometric indicators. New Library World, 116(9/10), 564–577. Scholar
  58. Singson, M., & Amees, M. (2017). Use of ResearchGate by the research scholars of Pondicherry University: A study. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 37(5), 366. Scholar
  59. Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037–2062. Scholar
  60. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 876–889. Scholar
  61. 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. Scholar
  62. Torres-Salinas, D., Cabezas-Clavijo, Á., & Jiménez-Contreras, E. (2013). Altmetrics: New indicators for scientific communication in Web 2.0. Comunicar, 21(41), 53–60. Scholar
  63. Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126–129. Scholar
  64. Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766–774. Scholar
  65. Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365–391. Scholar
  66. 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
  67. 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. Scholar
  68. 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. Scholar
  69. 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. Scholar
  70. 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. Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ArchitectureIUAV University of VeniceVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations