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.
翻译:与谷歌学者一样,《研究Gate索引》采用自动爬行算法,从各种来源提取书目数据、引文和其他关于学术文章的信息,然而,据观察,这两个平台往往显示同一机构、期刊和作者的出版和引用数据不同,因此,本文件试图分析和衡量这两个平台在出版物、引文和不同度量方面的差异,以获得大量引用的作者的大型数据集。结果显示,这两个平台上的同一位作者在出版计数和引文方面差异很大,而谷歌学者对绝大多数案例的计数也较高。两个平台计算的不同指标也各不相同,显示出不同程度的关联性。覆盖政策、索引错误、作者归属机制和处理掠夺性出版的战略被认为是两个平台差异的主要可能原因。