Do ResearchGate Scores create ghost academic reputations?

TL;DR

This study examines whether ResearchGate Scores accurately reflect scholarly reputation, finding they are mainly driven by site activity rather than academic achievements, thus questioning their validity as reputation indicators.

Contribution

It provides empirical evidence that RG Scores are influenced more by platform engagement than by scholarly output, challenging their use as reputation metrics.

Findings

High RG Scores are mainly from asking and answering questions.

High scores are not solely based on publications.

Active platform engagement correlates with higher RG Scores.

Abstract

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 & 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.