Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations?

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

ResearchGate has launched its own citation index by extracting citations from documents uploaded to the site and reporting citation counts on article profile pages. Since authors may upload preprints to ResearchGate, it may use these to provide early impact evidence for new papers. This article assesses the whether the number of citations found for recent articles is comparable to other citation indexes using 2675 recently-published library and information science articles. The results show that in March 2017, ResearchGate found less citations than did Google Scholar but more than both Web of Science and Scopus. This held true for the dataset overall and for the six largest journals in it. ResearchGate correlated most strongly with Google Scholar citations, suggesting that ResearchGate is not predominantly tapping a fundamentally different source of data than Google Scholar. Nevertheless, preprint sharing in ResearchGate is substantial enough for authors to take seriously.

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.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Austin, P. C., & Hux, J. E. (2002). A brief note on overlapping confidence intervals. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 36(1), 194–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandão, M. A., & Moro, M. M. (2017). Social professional networks: A survey and taxonomy. Computer Communications, 100(1), 20–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Solla Price, D. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American society for Information science, 27(5), 292–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado López-Cózar, E., Robinson-García, N., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2014). The Google Scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 446–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halevi, G., & Moed, H. F. (2014). Usage patterns of scientific journals and their relationship with citations. In Proceedings of the Science and Technology Indicators Conference 2014 (STI 2014), Leiden, Netherlands (pp. 241–251).

  • Harzing, A. W., & Van Der Wal, R. (2009). A Google Scholar h-index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, H. R. (in press). Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2291-4.

  • Jordan, K. (2017). Understanding the structure and role of academics’ ego-networks on social networking sites. Ph.D. thesis, The Open University. http://oro.open.ac.uk/48259/.

  • Julious, S. A. (2004). Using confidence intervals around individual means to assess statistical significance between two means. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 3(3), 217–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laakso, M., Lindman, J., Shen, C., Nyman, L., & Björk, B.-C. (2017). Research output availability on academic social networks: Implications for stakeholders in academic publishing. Electronic Markets. doi:10.1007/s12525-016-0242-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105–2125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2005). Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 56(10), 1088–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2016). A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 533–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niyazov, Y., Vogel, C., Price, R., Lund, B., Judd, D., Akil, A., et al. (2016). Open access meets discoverability: Citations to articles posted to Academia.edu. PLoS ONE, 11(2), e0148257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orduña-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2016). ResearchGate como fuente de evaluación científica: Desvelando sus aplicaciones bibliométricas. El Profesional de la Información (EPI), 25(2), 303–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.

  • ResearchGate. (2009). Self-archiving repository goes online. https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/self-archiving-repository-goes-online.

  • ResearchGate. (2013). Introducing citations on ResearchGate. ResearchGate blog (7 February 2013). https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/introducing-citations-on-researchgate.

  • ResearchGate. (2016). Introducing the h-index on ResearchGate. ResearchGate blog (8 March 2016). https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/introducing-the-h-index-on-researchgate.

  • Thelwall, M. (2016a). Are the discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions plausible for citation data? Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 454–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2016b). Citation count distributions for large monodisciplinary journals. Journal of Informetrics, 10(3), 863–874. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.07.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2016c). The discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions for complete citation data: Best options for modelling and regression. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 336–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2017). Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 128–151. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2016.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Fairclough, R. (2015). Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles. Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Fairclough, R. (in press). The accuracy of confidence intervals for field normalised indicators. Journal of Informetrics. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.03.004.

  • Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2014). Academia.edu: Social network or academic network? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 721–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 876–889. doi:10.1002/asi.23236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2017). ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size and impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(2), 468–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2003). Bibliographic and web citations: What is the difference? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(14), 1313–1322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, M. C., Wu, Y. C., Alhalabi, W., Kao, H. Y., & Wu, W. H. (2016). ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers? Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1001–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M. (2012). The journal impact factor: Angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on JK Vanclay’s article 2011. Scientometrics, 92(2), 485–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton, WV1 1LY, UK

    Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha

Authors
  1. Mike Thelwall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kayvan Kousha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mike Thelwall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2400-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation