{"title":"Metrics fraud on ResearchGate","authors":"Savina Kirilova , Fred Zoepfl","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2024.101604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The academic social networking site ResearchGate (RG) allows members to post refereed papers and non-refereed preprints on the service. RG provides service-specific metrics and altmetrics for authors and publications posted on the service such as Reads, Citations, Recommendations, h-index, and RI Scores. This paper identifies problems based on a review of examples of questionable practices, which raises concerns about the lack of transparency and the validity of RG's metrics and altmetrics to assess scientific reputation. The paper describes a scheme that small groups of researchers use to deliberately inflate each other's metrics on RG. Additionally, a comparison is made between an unethical physics researcher's RG metrics and those of several Physics Nobel Laureates. Based on the problems found, the paper proposes several corrective actions RG could implement to mitigate metrics fraud on the service.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48662,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Informetrics","volume":"19 1","pages":"Article 101604"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Informetrics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724001160","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The academic social networking site ResearchGate (RG) allows members to post refereed papers and non-refereed preprints on the service. RG provides service-specific metrics and altmetrics for authors and publications posted on the service such as Reads, Citations, Recommendations, h-index, and RI Scores. This paper identifies problems based on a review of examples of questionable practices, which raises concerns about the lack of transparency and the validity of RG's metrics and altmetrics to assess scientific reputation. The paper describes a scheme that small groups of researchers use to deliberately inflate each other's metrics on RG. Additionally, a comparison is made between an unethical physics researcher's RG metrics and those of several Physics Nobel Laureates. Based on the problems found, the paper proposes several corrective actions RG could implement to mitigate metrics fraud on the service.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Informetrics (JOI) publishes rigorous high-quality research on quantitative aspects of information science. The main focus of the journal is on topics in bibliometrics, scientometrics, webometrics, patentometrics, altmetrics and research evaluation. Contributions studying informetric problems using methods from other quantitative fields, such as mathematics, statistics, computer science, economics and econometrics, and network science, are especially encouraged. JOI publishes both theoretical and empirical work. In general, case studies, for instance a bibliometric analysis focusing on a specific research field or a specific country, are not considered suitable for publication in JOI, unless they contain innovative methodological elements.