Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate
Scientometrics, ISSN: 1588-2861, Vol: 120, Issue: 1, Page: 351-360
2019
- 17Citations
- 33Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Letter Description
The scholarly social network ResearchGate (RG) started promoting a new composite indicator: Research Interest. That score is built upon a weighting scheme of citations, recommendations, full-text reads, and other reads by RG members. Here I show that the indicator suffers from, at least, two significant issues, which undermine its utility as an alternative metric. Lack of transparency is the former since there are clues that its underlying algorithm is more complex than what is known according to the information conveyed by RG. Redundancy is another issue because the score is essentially driven by the number of citations and seems to bring negligible additional knowledge in the altmetrics landscape.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85066017003&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w; http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w.pdf; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w/fulltext.html; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know