Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

ResearchGate has emerged as a popular professional network for scientists and researchers in a very short span. Similar to Google Scholar, the ResearchGate indexing uses an automatic crawling algorithm that extracts bibliographic data, citations, and other information about scholarly articles from various sources. However, it has been observed that the two platforms often show different publication and citation data for the same institutions, journals, and authors. While several previous studies analysed different aspects of ResearchGate and Google Scholar, the quantum of differences in publications, citations, and metrics between the two and the probable reasons for the same are not explored much. This article, therefore, attempts to bridge this research gap by analysing and measuring the differences in publications, citations, and different metrics of the two platforms for a large data set of highly cited authors. The results indicate that there are significantly high differences in publications and citations for the same authors captured by the two platforms, with Google Scholar having higher counts for a vast majority of the cases. The different metrics computed by the two platforms also differ in their values, showing different degrees of correlation. The coverage policy, indexing errors, author attribution mechanism, and strategy to deal with predatory publishing are found to be the main probable reasons for the differences in the two platforms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.researchgate.net/.

  2. https://www.researchgate.net/press.

  3. http://scholar.google.com.

  4. https://scholar.google.com/intl/us/scholar/help.html#coverage.

  5. https://scholar.googleblog.com/2014/08/fresh-look-of-scholar-profiles.html.

  6. https://www.webometrics.info/en/hlargerthan100.

  7. https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/RG+Score.

References

  • Aguillo, I. F. (2012). Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Scientometrics, 91(2), 343–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banshal, S. K., Singh, V. K., & Muhuri, P. K. (2021). Can altmetric mentions predict later citations? A test of validity on data from ResearchGate and three social media platforms. Online Information Review, 45(3), 517–536. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-11-2019-0364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Illan, J. (2008). Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, scopus and google scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beall, J. (2014). Google scholar is filled with junk science. Scholarly Open Access. Retrieved from: https://www.emeraldcityjournal.com/2014/11/google-scholar-is-filled-with-junk-science/.

  • Bohannon, J. (2014). Google Scholar wins raves—But can it be trusted? Science, 343, 6166. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.343.6166.14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copiello, S. (2019). Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate. Scientometrics, 120, 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copiello, S., & Bonifaci, P. (2018). A few remarks on ResearchGate score and academic reputation. Scientometrics, 114, 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2582-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copiello, S., & Bonifaci, P. (2019). ResearchGate Score, full-text research items, and full-text reads: A follow-up study. Scientometrics, 119, 1255–1262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03063-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Winter, J. C., Zadpoor, A. A., & Dodou, D. (2014). The expansion of Google Scholar versus web of science: A longitudinal study. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1547–1565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahimzadeh, S., Rezaei, S., Sharifabadi, K. A., Kamran, M., & Dalkir, K. (2020). Triggers and strategies related to the collaborative information-seeking behaviour of researchers in ResearchGate. Online Information Review, 44(5), 1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. (2006). An improvement of the h-index: The g-index. ISSI Newsletter, 2(1), 8–9.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gusenbauer, M. (2019). Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases. Scientometrics, 118, 177–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2958-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halevi, G., Moed, H., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2017). Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 823–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacso, P. (2005). As we may search—comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science, 89(9), 1537–1547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacsó, P. (2008). The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 32(3), 437–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacsó, P. (2012). Google Scholar Metrics for Publications: The software and content features of a new open access bibliometric service. Online Information Review, 36(4), 604–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, H. R. (2017). Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics, 112(1), 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, K. (2015). Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric: reflections and implications for practice. In: Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web (ASCW’15), Oxford.

  • Kolata, G. (2017). Many academics are eager to publish in worthless journals. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/science/predatory-journals-academics.html.

  • Kraker, P., & Lex, E. (2015). A critical look at the ResearchGate score as a measure of scientific reputation. In Proceedings of the quantifying and analysing scholarly communication on the web workshop (ASCW’15), Web Science conference.

  • Lathabai, H. H. (2020). ψ-index: A new overall productivity index for actors of science and technology. Journal of Informetrics, 14(4), 101096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Oh, S., Dong, H., Wang, F., & Burnett, G. (2019). Motivations for self-archiving on an academic social networking site: A study on ResearchGate. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(6), 563–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Cozar, E. D., & Cabezas-Clavijo, A. (2013). Ranking journals: Could Google scholar metrics be an alternative to journal citation reports and Scimago journal rank? Learned Publishing, 26(2), 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marina, T., & Sterligov, I. (2021). Prevalence of potentially predatory publishing in scopus on the country level. Scientometrics, 126, 5019–5077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Martín, A., Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Evidence of open access of scientific publications in Google Scholar: A large-scale analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 819–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Martin, A., Orduña-Malea, E., Harzing, A. W., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2017). Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents? Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 152–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Martín, A., Orduña-Malea, E., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Author-level metrics in the new academic profile platforms: The online behaviour of the Bibliometrics community. Journal of Informetrics, 12(2), 494–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, S., & Sakurai, Y. (2020). A ResearchGate-way to an international academic community? Scientometrics, 126, 1149–1171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, P., & Walter, A. K. (2007). An exploratory study of Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 31(6), 814–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, A., & Tunger, D. (2018). Survey on opinions and usage patterns for the ResearchGate platform. PLoS ONE, 13(10), e0204945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memon, A. R. (2016). ResearchGate is no longer reliable: Leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 66(12), 1643–1647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, M. (2014). Analysis of a scholarly social networking site: The case of the dormant user. SAIS 2014 Proceedings, 1.

  • Muscanell, N., & Utz, S. (2017). Social networking for scientists: An analysis on how and why academics use ResearchGate. Online Information Review, 41(5), 744–759. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-07-2016-0185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas, D., Clark, D., & Herman, E. (2016). ResearchGate: Reputation uncovered. Learned Publishing, 29(3), 173–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, M., Oppenheim, C., & Rowland, F. (2008). Finding open access articles using google, google scholar, oaister and opendoar. Online Information Review, 32(6), 709–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2017). Performance behavior patterns in Author-level metrics: A disciplinary comparison of Google Scholar Citations, ResearchGate, and ImpactStory. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 2, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2017.00014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orduña-Malea, E., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2014). Google Scholar Metrics evolution: An analysis according to languages. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2353–2367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orduña-Malea, E., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2015). The dark side of Open Access in Google and Google Scholar: The case of Latin-American repositories. Scientometrics, 102(1), 829–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orduna-Malea, E., Martin-Martin, A., Thelwall, M., & Delgado Lopez-Cozar, E. (2017). Do ResearchGate Scores create ghost academic reputations? Scientometrics, 112, 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2396-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, J. L. (2017). Toward a homogenization of academic social sites: A longitudinal study of profiles in Academia.edu, Google Scholar Citations and ResearchGate. Online Information Review, 41(6), 812–825. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-01-2016-0012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Maduekwe, O., et al. (2017). Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: Can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Medicine, 15(1), 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, R., & Mahajan, P. (2015). Relationship amongst ResearchGate altmetric indicators and Scopus bibliometric indicators: The case of Panjab University Chandigarh (India). New Library World, 116(9/10), 564–577. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-03-2015-0017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, R., & Mahajan, P. (2017). An altmetric analysis of ResearchGate profiles of physics researchers: A study of University of Delhi (India). Performance Measurement and Metrics, 18(1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-07-2016-0033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, V.K., Srichandan, S.S. & Lathabai, H.L. (2021). ResearchGate and Google Scholar: How much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why? Pre-print. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.13602

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2017a). 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2017b). ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations? Scientometrics, 112(2), 1125–1131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2400-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tol, R. S. (2008). A rational, successive g-index applied to economics departments in Ireland. Journal of Informetrics, 2(2), 149–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tol, R. (2009). The h-index and its alternatives: An application to the 100 most prolific economists? Scientometrics, 80(2), 317–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature News, 512(7513), 126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Noorden, R. (2017). Publishers threaten to remove millions of papers from ResearchGate. Nature News. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2017.22793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, W. H. (2007). Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field. Information Processing & Management, 43(4), 1121–1132.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, W., Zhang, Y., Hu, T., & Kudva, S. (2021). How does scholarly use of academic social networking sites differ by academic discipline? A case study using ResearchGate. Information Processing & Management, 58(1), 102430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Behaviour, 55, 1001–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is partly supported by the extramural research grant no: MTR/2020/000625 from Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), India, to the first author. The authors would also like to acknowledge that a pre-print version of this article is available on arXiv at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.13602 (Singh, Srichandan & Lathabai, 2021).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221005, India

    Vivek Kumar Singh, Satya Swarup Srichandan & Hiran H. Lathabai

Authors
  1. Vivek Kumar Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Satya Swarup Srichandan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiran H. Lathabai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vivek Kumar Singh.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

See Table

Table 4 Summary of related literature
Full size table

4.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, V.K., Srichandan, S.S. & Lathabai, H.H. ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?. Scientometrics 127, 1515–1542 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04264-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04264-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation