ResearchGate and Google Scholar: How much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?

TL;DR

This study compares ResearchGate and Google Scholar, revealing significant differences in publication and citation counts due to indexing policies, errors, and author attribution strategies, affecting scholarly metrics accuracy.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive analysis of the discrepancies between ResearchGate and Google Scholar in publication and citation data for highly cited authors.

Findings

Google Scholar generally reports higher publication and citation counts.

Significant differences exist in metrics and their correlations across platforms.

Coverage policies and indexing errors are key reasons for discrepancies.

Abstract

ResearchGate has emerged as a popular professional network for scientists and researchers in a very short span of time. Similar to Google Scholar, the ResearchGate indexing uses an automatic crawling algorithm that extracts bibliographic data, citations and other information about scholarly articles from various sources. However, it has been observed that the two platforms often show different publication and citation data for the same institutions, journals and authors. This paper, therefore, attempts to analyse and measure the differences in publication counts, citations and different metrics of the two platforms for a large data set of highly cited authors. The results indicate that there are significantly high differences in publication counts and citations for the same authors in the two platforms, with Google Scholar having higher counts for a vast majority of the cases. The different metrics computed by the two platforms also differ in their values, showing different degrees of correlations. The coverage policy, indexing errors, author attribution mechanism and strategy to deal with predatory publishing are found to be the main probable reasons for the differences in the two platforms.