ResearchGate (RG) is a scholarly social network that possesses an impressive array of reputational metrics and has the potential to supplant publishers as the prime deliverer of scholarly reputation. It possesses 10 reputational mechanisms, and these are the subject of an evaluation employing desk research, expert evaluation, and an analysis of 400 RG members. The main conclusions are: RG (1) provides a rich, albeit confusing, amount of reputational data; (2) struggles with the deployment of alternative, engagement metrics, such as Q&A and follower data, which can lead to reputational anomalies; (3) employs usage data in an especially effective manner; and (4) leads the field in the way it engages with the scholar.
%0 Journal Article
%1 nicholas2016researchgate
%A Nicholas, David
%A Clark, David
%A Herman, Eti
%D 2016
%I John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
%J Learned Publishing
%K altmetrics reputation
%N 3
%P 173--182
%R 10.1002/leap.1035
%T ResearchGate: Reputation uncovered
%U http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/leap.1035
%V 29
%X ResearchGate (RG) is a scholarly social network that possesses an impressive array of reputational metrics and has the potential to supplant publishers as the prime deliverer of scholarly reputation. It possesses 10 reputational mechanisms, and these are the subject of an evaluation employing desk research, expert evaluation, and an analysis of 400 RG members. The main conclusions are: RG (1) provides a rich, albeit confusing, amount of reputational data; (2) struggles with the deployment of alternative, engagement metrics, such as Q&A and follower data, which can lead to reputational anomalies; (3) employs usage data in an especially effective manner; and (4) leads the field in the way it engages with the scholar.
@article{nicholas2016researchgate,
abstract = {ResearchGate (RG) is a scholarly social network that possesses an impressive array of reputational metrics and has the potential to supplant publishers as the prime deliverer of scholarly reputation. It possesses 10 reputational mechanisms, and these are the subject of an evaluation employing desk research, expert evaluation, and an analysis of 400 RG members. The main conclusions are: RG (1) provides a rich, albeit confusing, amount of reputational data; (2) struggles with the deployment of alternative, engagement metrics, such as Q&A and follower data, which can lead to reputational anomalies; (3) employs usage data in an especially effective manner; and (4) leads the field in the way it engages with the scholar.},
added-at = {2016-09-13T08:27:23.000+0200},
author = {Nicholas, David and Clark, David and Herman, Eti},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/26426a1dcce4b386c2dfca2c835ac7a4b/wdees},
description = {ResearchGate: Reputation uncovered - Nicholas - 2016 - Learned Publishing - Wiley Online Library},
doi = {10.1002/leap.1035},
interhash = {6aa9ab36a3a223fb737d7f40219f9713},
intrahash = {6426a1dcce4b386c2dfca2c835ac7a4b},
issn = {1741-4857},
journal = {Learned Publishing},
keywords = {altmetrics reputation},
number = 3,
pages = {173--182},
publisher = {John Wiley & Sons, Ltd},
timestamp = {2016-09-13T08:27:23.000+0200},
title = {ResearchGate: Reputation uncovered},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/leap.1035},
volume = 29,
year = 2016
}