IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v128y2023i10d10.1007_s11192-023-04793-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Co-follower metric on academic-social media ResearchGate: similarities between Derek de Solla Price Memorial Medal winners

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio

    (São Paulo State University)

  • Natalia Rodrigues Delbianco

    (São Paulo State University)

  • Fábio Sampaio Rosas

    (São Paulo State University)

  • Antonio Perianes-Rodríguez

    (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid)

Abstract

From the perspective of the ResearchGate community, the study examines what are the relationships among researchers described by the co-followers metric. The study used the ResearchGate accounts of 18 Solla Price medalists. From each researcher's account, the following indicators were retrieved: number of readings, number of recommendations, number of research items, number of followers, list of specialties, and the comprehensive list of followers' names. Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated between number of followers and the other three indicators. Subsequently, a symmetric matrix was built with the number of common followers among the researchers, and then normalized by Salton's Cosine. Ucinet Software was employed to construct the relationship network among the Solla Price Medal winners with the MDS layout being adopted further for visualizing the proximity between them. The study found that the number of followers is a legitimate metric of academic reputation and impact on ResearchGate. The majority of followers of the analyzed Solla Price Medalists seem to choose to follow these researchers not because of their Solla Price Medal, but because of followers' familiarity with the researchers' scientific work and publications prior to joining ResearchGate. In addition, the clusters of medalists, according to their common followers, indicate that the groupings are strongly due to co-authorship in high-impact publications between the medalist researchers as well as their different specialties and the journals used to disseminate the results of their research projects. It is concluded that, instead of social proximities, the co-follower relational metric objectively represents theoretical-methodological proximities between researchers, as perceived by the ResearchGate community, providing a clear image of the role played by the researchers analyzed in this environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio & Natalia Rodrigues Delbianco & Fábio Sampaio Rosas & Antonio Perianes-Rodríguez, 2023. "Co-follower metric on academic-social media ResearchGate: similarities between Derek de Solla Price Memorial Medal winners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5545-5569, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:10:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04793-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04793-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-023-04793-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-023-04793-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Per Ahlgren & Bo Jarneving & Ronald Rousseau, 2003. "Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson's correlation coefficient," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(6), pages 550-560, April.
    2. Ruiz-Castillo Ucelay, Javier & Perianes Rodríguez, Antonio & Costas, Rodrigo, 2017. "On the quest for currencies of science: field "exc"hange rates for citations and Mendeley readership," UC3M Working papers. Economics 24026, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
    3. Henk F. Moed, 2000. "Bibliometric Indicators Reflect Publication and Management Strategies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 47(2), pages 323-346, February.
    4. Howard D. White, 2008. "Katherine McCain: Recipient of the 2007 Derek de Solla Price Award of the journal Scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(1), pages 7-10, January.
    5. Henry Small, 1973. "Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 24(4), pages 265-269, July.
    6. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2015. "ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(5), pages 876-889, May.
    7. Howard D. White, 2001. "Authors as citers over time," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 52(2), pages 87-108.
    8. Christian Pieter Hoffmann & Christoph Lutz & Miriam Meckel, 2016. "A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(4), pages 765-775, April.
    9. Howard D. White & Belver C. Griffith, 1981. "Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 32(3), pages 163-171, May.
    10. Weiwei Yan & Yin Zhang & Wendy Bromfield, 2018. "Analyzing the follower–followee ratio to determine user characteristics and institutional participation differences among research universities on ResearchGate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 299-316, April.
    11. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2017. "ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size, and impact," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(2), pages 468-479, February.
    12. Weiwei Yan & Qian Liu & Ruoyu Chen & Shengwei Yi, 2020. "Social networks formed by follower–followee relationships on academic social networking sites: an examination of corporation users," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2083-2101, September.
    13. Enrique Orduna-Malea & Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2017. "Do ResearchGate Scores create ghost academic reputations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 443-460, July.
    14. Alan E. Bayer & John C. Smart & Gerald W. McLaughlin, 1990. "Mapping intellectual structure of a scientific subfield through author cocitations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 41(6), pages 444-452, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 351-360, July.
    2. Sergio Copiello & Pietro Bonifaci, 2019. "ResearchGate Score, full-text research items, and full-text reads: a follow-up study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1255-1262, May.
    3. Lepori, Benedetto & Thelwall, Michael & Hoorani, Bareerah Hafeez, 2018. "Which US and European Higher Education Institutions are visible in ResearchGate and what affects their RG score?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 806-818.
    4. Łukasz Wiechetek & Zbigniew Pastuszak, 2022. "Academic social networks metrics: an effective indicator for university performance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1381-1401, March.
    5. Sergio Copiello & Pietro Bonifaci, 2018. "A few remarks on ResearchGate score and academic reputation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 301-306, January.
    6. Raphaël Maucuer & Alexandre Renaud, 2019. "Business Model Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of Origins and Trends," Post-Print hal-01918188, HAL.
    7. Weiwei Yan & Yin Zhang & Wendy Bromfield, 2018. "Analyzing the follower–followee ratio to determine user characteristics and institutional participation differences among research universities on ResearchGate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 299-316, April.
    8. Ying Huang & Wolfgang Glänzel & Lin Zhang, 2021. "Tracing the development of mapping knowledge domains," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6201-6224, July.
    9. Jun-Ping Qiu & Ke Dong & Hou-Qiang Yu, 2014. "Comparative study on structure and correlation among author co-occurrence networks in bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1345-1360, November.
    10. Perianes-Rodriguez, Antonio & Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan, 2016. "Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1178-1195.
    11. Yan, Weiwei & Zhang, Yin, 2018. "Research universities on the ResearchGate social networking site: An examination of institutional differences, research activity level, and social networks formed," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 385-400.
    12. Yun, Jinhyuk & Ahn, Sejung & Lee, June Young, 2020. "Return to basics: Clustering of scientific literature using structural information," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    13. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    14. Markus Gmür, 2003. "Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(1), pages 27-57, January.
    15. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    16. Weiwei Yan & Qian Liu & Ruoyu Chen & Shengwei Yi, 2020. "Social networks formed by follower–followee relationships on academic social networking sites: an examination of corporation users," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2083-2101, September.
    17. Juliana E. Raffaghelli & Stefania Manca, 2019. "Is There a Social Life in Open Data? The Case of Open Data Practices in Educational Technology Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, January.
    18. Vivek Kumar Singh & Satya Swarup Srichandan & Hiran H. Lathabai, 2022. "ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1515-1542, March.
    19. Francisco García-Lillo & Enrique Claver-Cortés & Bartolomé Marco-Lajara & Mercedes Úbeda-García, 2017. "Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Research on ‘Born Global’ Firms and INVs: A Citation/Co-citation Analysis," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 631-652, August.
    20. Weiwei Yan & Xin Wen & Yin Zhang & Sonali Kudva & Qian Liu, 2023. "The dynamics of Q&A in academic social networking sites: insights from participants, interaction network, response time, and discipline differences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1895-1922, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:128:y:2023:i:10:d:10.1007_s11192-023-04793-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.