研究门上的度量欺诈

IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Journal of Informetrics Pub Date : 2024-11-16 DOI:10.1016/j.joi.2024.101604
Savina Kirilova , Fred Zoepfl
{"title":"研究门上的度量欺诈","authors":"Savina Kirilova ,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Metrics fraud on ResearchGate\",\"authors\":\"Savina Kirilova ,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

学术社交网站 ResearchGate (RG) 允许会员在该服务上发布经评审的论文和非经评审的预印本。RG 为在该服务上发布的作者和出版物提供特定的服务指标和 Altmetrics,如阅读量、引用量、推荐量、h 指数和 RI 分数。本文根据对可疑做法实例的审查发现了一些问题,这些问题引起了人们对 RG 指标和 Altmetrics 在评估科学声誉方面缺乏透明度和有效性的担忧。论文描述了一小撮研究人员故意抬高彼此在 RG 上的指标的做法。此外,还比较了一位不道德的物理学研究人员的 RG 指标和几位诺贝尔物理学奖获得者的指标。根据发现的问题,论文提出了 RG 可以采取的几种纠正措施,以减少服务上的度量欺诈。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Metrics fraud on ResearchGate
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Informetrics
Journal of Informetrics Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
16.20%
发文量
95
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.
期刊最新文献
Citation recommendation based on argumentative zoning of user queries An empirical study of retractions due to honest errors: Exploring the relationship between error types and author teams The disruption index suffers from citation inflation: Re-analysis of temporal CD trend and relationship with team size reveal discrepancies Metrics fraud on ResearchGate How does Nobel prize awarding shift the research topics of Nobelists’ coauthors and non-coauthors?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1