REVIEW: RESEARCH INTEREST SCORE IN RESEARCHGATE: THE SILVER BULLET OF SCIENTOMETRICS OR THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES?

Keywords: Scientometrics, Researchers’ evaluation, ResearchGate, Research Interest Score

Abstract

Introduction: Scientists have long searched for the best way to evaluate scientific performance and have come up with numerous indices. Probably, the most famous index is the h-index, a metric that has been used widely in science metrics ever since it appeared. In this study, I evaluated the potential of the new metric Research Interest Score created by ResearchGate (RG).

Methods: I analyzed the different metric indices for 88 most cited researchers at the University of Sarajevo. In particular, the number of citations and h-indexes were taken from the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases for these researchers and were correlated with their Research Interest Scores. As a measure of correlation, Pearson correlation coefficients was used. In addition, I conducted a regression analysis to examine how scientometric indices from the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar predict the Research Interest Score

Results: The Research Interest Score was most strongly correlated with the number of Google Scholar Citations, followed by the Web of Science citations.  Interestingly, the Research Interest Score was not highly correlated with any of the h-indexes. The regression model was statistically significant and explained 90% of the variance in the Research Interest Scores predicted by the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar metric indices. The strongest predictor of the Research Interest Score was the number of Google Scholar citations.

Conclusions: The Research Interest Score, a new scientometric measure created by ResearchGate, certainly has a potential to be used as a valid measure of scientific impact.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Memisevic H, Pasalic A, Mujkanovic E, Memisevic M. In search of a silver bullet: evaluating researchers’ performance in Bosnia and Herzegovina. J Scientometr Res 2019;8(3):125-130.

Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. PNAS 2005;102(46):16569-16572.

Barnes C. The h-index debate: an introduction for librarians. J Acad Librariansh 2017;43(6):487-494.

Zerem E. The ranking of scientists based on scientific publications assessment. J Biomed Inform 2017;75:107-109.

Zimba O, Gasparyan AY. Social media platforms: a primer for researchers. Reumatologia 2021;59(2):68-72.

Lepori B, Thelwall M, Hoorani BH. Which US and European higher education institutions are visible in ResearchGate and what affects their RG score? J Informetr 2018;12(3):806-818.

Memisevic H, Taljic I, Hadziomerovic AM. Making use of H-index: the shape of science at the University of Sarajevo. Acta Inform Med 2017;25(3):187.

Nicholas D, Clark D, Herman E. ResearchGate: reputation uncovered. Learn Publ 2016;29(3):173-182.

Bar-Ilan J. Which h-index? A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics 2008;74(2):257-271.

IBM. (2020). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. In Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Duisenova A, Trukhachev VI, Kostyukova EI, Kitas GD. Researcher and author impact metrics: variety, value, and context. J Korean Med Sci 2018;33(18):e139.

Sternberg RJ. Evaluating merit among scientists. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 2018;7(2):209-216.

Published
2022-11-14
Section
SOCIAL MEDIA ETHICS. OBSERVATIONAL RESEARCH