Do ResearchGate Scores create ghost academic reputations?

The academic social network site ResearchGate (RG) has its own indicator, RG Score, for its members. The high profile nature of the site means that the RG Score may be used for recruitment, promotion and other tasks for which researchers are evaluated. In response, this study investigates whether it is reasonable to employ the RG Score as evidence of scholarly reputation. For this, three different author samples were investigated. An outlier sample includes 104 authors with high values. A Nobel sample comprises 73 Nobel winners from Medicine and Physiology, Chemistry, Physics and Economics (from 1975 to 2015). A longitudinal sample includes weekly data on 4 authors with different RG Scores. The results suggest that high RG Scores are built primarily from activity related to asking and answering questions in the site. In particular, it seems impossible to get a high RG Score solely through publications. Within RG it is possible to distinguish between (passive) academics that interact little in the site and active platform users, who can get high RG Scores through engaging with others inside the site (questions, answers, social networks with influential researchers). Thus, RG Scores should not be mistaken for academic reputation indicators.

[1]  James Wilsdon The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management , 2016 .

[2]  Lluís Codina,et al.  Presencia de las universidades españolas en las redes sociales digitales científicas: caso de los estudios de Comunicación , 2015 .

[3]  José Luis Ortega,et al.  Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC's members , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[4]  Peter Kraker,et al.  A Critical Look at the ResearchGate Score as a Measure of Scientific Reputation , 2015 .

[5]  S. Ovadia ResearchGate and Academia.edu: Academic Social Networks , 2014 .

[6]  Enrique Orduña-Malea,et al.  The counting house: measuring those who count. Presence of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics and Altmetrics in the Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley & Twitter , 2016, ArXiv.

[7]  Simon Hoyle The evolution of research , 2014 .

[8]  Richard Van Noorden Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network , 2014, Nature.

[9]  S. Rijcke,et al.  Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics , 2015, Nature.

[10]  Aamir Raoof Memon,et al.  ResearchGate is no longer reliable: leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community. , 2016, JPMA. The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association.

[11]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size, and impact , 2017, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[12]  S. Rijcke,et al.  Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. , 2015, Nature.

[13]  Arbana Kadriu,et al.  Discovering value in academic social networks: A case study in ResearchGate , 2013, Proceedings of the ITI 2013 35th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces.

[14]  Bianca Kramer,et al.  Innovations in scholarly communication - data of the global 2015-2016 survey , 2016 .

[15]  Katy Jordan,et al.  Academics and their online networks: Exploring the role of academic social networking sites , 2014, First Monday.

[16]  Eti Herman,et al.  ResearchGate: Reputation uncovered , 2016, Learn. Publ..

[17]  Christian Pieter Hoffmann,et al.  A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[18]  Daqing He,et al.  Changing communication on researchgate through interface updates , 2014, ASIST.

[19]  Enrique Orduña-Malea,et al.  The next bibliometrics: ALMetrics (Author Level Metrics) and the multiple faces of author impact , 2016 .

[20]  Emilio Delgado López-Cózar,et al.  The evolution of research activity in Spain , 2003, Research Policy.

[21]  Lei Li,et al.  Answer Quality Characteristics and Prediction on an Academic Q&A Site: A Case Study on ResearchGate , 2015, WWW.

[22]  Emilio Delgado López-Cózar,et al.  The Role of Ego in Academic Profile Services: Comparing Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Mendeley, and ResearcherID , 2016 .

[23]  Katy Jordan Academics’ Awareness, Perceptions and Uses of Social Networking Sites: Analysis of a Social Networking Sites Survey Dataset , 2014 .

[24]  Katy Jordan,et al.  Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric: reflections and implications for practice , 2015 .

[25]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship? , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[26]  José Luis Ortega Social network sites for scientists , 2016 .

[27]  Susanne Mikki,et al.  Digital Presence of Norwegian Scholars on Academic Network Sites—Where and Who Are They? , 2015, PloS one.