, Volume 112, Issue 2, pp 1125–1131 | Cite as

ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations?

  • Mike ThelwallEmail author
  • Kayvan Kousha


ResearchGate has launched its own citation index by extracting citations from documents uploaded to the site and reporting citation counts on article profile pages. Since authors may upload preprints to ResearchGate, it may use these to provide early impact evidence for new papers. This article assesses the whether the number of citations found for recent articles is comparable to other citation indexes using 2675 recently-published library and information science articles. The results show that in March 2017, ResearchGate found less citations than did Google Scholar but more than both Web of Science and Scopus. This held true for the dataset overall and for the six largest journals in it. ResearchGate correlated most strongly with Google Scholar citations, suggesting that ResearchGate is not predominantly tapping a fundamentally different source of data than Google Scholar. Nevertheless, preprint sharing in ResearchGate is substantial enough for authors to take seriously.


ResearchGate Early impact Citation analysis Altmetrics Academic social network sites 


  1. Austin, P. C., & Hux, J. E. (2002). A brief note on overlapping confidence intervals. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 36(1), 194–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brandão, M. A., & Moro, M. M. (2017). Social professional networks: A survey and taxonomy. Computer Communications, 100(1), 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. de Solla Price, D. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American society for Information science, 27(5), 292–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Delgado López-Cózar, E., Robinson-García, N., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2014). The Google Scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 446–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Halevi, G., & Moed, H. F. (2014). Usage patterns of scientific journals and their relationship with citations. In Proceedings of the Science and Technology Indicators Conference 2014 (STI 2014), Leiden, Netherlands (pp. 241–251).Google Scholar
  6. Harzing, A. W., & Van Der Wal, R. (2009). A Google Scholar h-index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jamali, H. R. (in press). Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2291-4.
  8. Jordan, K. (2017). Understanding the structure and role of academics’ ego-networks on social networking sites. Ph.D. thesis, The Open University.
  9. Julious, S. A. (2004). Using confidence intervals around individual means to assess statistical significance between two means. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 3(3), 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Laakso, M., Lindman, J., Shen, C., Nyman, L., & Björk, B.-C. (2017). Research output availability on academic social networks: Implications for stakeholders in academic publishing. Electronic Markets. doi: 10.1007/s12525-016-0242-1.Google Scholar
  11. Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Memon, A. R. (2016). ResearchGate is no longer reliable: Leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 66(12), 1643–1647.Google Scholar
  13. Moed, H. F. (2005). Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1088–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moed, H. F., Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2016). A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 533–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Niyazov, Y., Vogel, C., Price, R., Lund, B., Judd, D., Akil, A., et al. (2016). Open access meets discoverability: Citations to articles posted to PLoS ONE, 11(2), e0148257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Orduña-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2016). ResearchGate como fuente de evaluación científica: Desvelando sus aplicaciones bibliométricas. El Profesional de la Información (EPI), 25(2), 303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto.
  19. ResearchGate. (2009). Self-archiving repository goes online.
  20. ResearchGate. (2013). Introducing citations on ResearchGate. ResearchGate blog (7 February 2013).
  21. ResearchGate. (2016). Introducing the h-index on ResearchGate. ResearchGate blog (8 March 2016).
  22. Thelwall, M. (2016a). Are the discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions plausible for citation data? Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 454–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thelwall, M. (2016b). Citation count distributions for large monodisciplinary journals. Journal of Informetrics, 10(3), 863–874. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.07.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thelwall, M. (2016c). The discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions for complete citation data: Best options for modelling and regression. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 336–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thelwall, M. (2017). Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 128–151. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thelwall, M., & Fairclough, R. (2015). Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles. Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thelwall, M., & Fairclough, R. (in press). The accuracy of confidence intervals for field normalised indicators. Journal of Informetrics. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.03.004.
  28. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2014). Social network or academic network? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 721–731.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. doi: 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Noorden, R. (2014). Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2003). Bibliographic and web citations: What is the difference? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(14), 1313–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yu, M. C., Wu, Y. C., Alhalabi, W., Kao, H. Y., & Wu, W. H. (2016). ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers? Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1001–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zitt, M. (2012). The journal impact factor: Angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on JK Vanclay’s article 2011. Scientometrics, 92(2), 485–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Statistical Cybermetrics Research GroupUniversity of WolverhamptonWolverhamptonUK

Personalised recommendations