Researchgate – a promising tool for searching scientific information and sharing research results

   Introduction. Academic social networks (ResearchGate, Academia.edu, SciPeople, Social Science Research Network, CoLab, etc.) are increasingly developing and expanding their functionality not only as platforms for scientific communication, but also as full-fledged tools for searching for diverse information and exchanging research results. One of the most popular networks in the world is ResearchGate, which allows not only to significantly expand the network of scientific contacts and present the results of their research to the scientific community, receive an assessment and determine the prevalence and demand for thematic areas, the influence of scientists and organizations, but also to search for scientific content, study research interests, promote their publications.

   Purpose setting. The study sets the objectives of studying the demand and functional characteristics of the scientific social network ResearchGate, as well as its applicability for searching for information when conducting research and in educational processes, tracking the involvement of Russian scientists in scientific communication using this network.

   Methodology and methods of the study. The study was conducted using the methods of comparative and system analysis, mathematical methods of processing statistical data, content analysis of documentary sources of information. The methodological basis was a practice-oriented approach aimed at developing information retrieval skills in researchers and using open access resources for scientific and educational purposes.

   Results. The analysis allowed us to draw conclusions about the broad functionality of ResearchGate (downloading full texts, data exchange, tracking recommendations, subscribing to similar materials, participating in groups, assessing research interest, advanced search in the system, etc.), contributing to the development of the scientific communications system and obtaining open access to scientific information.

   Conclusion. In order to study the degree of use of ResearchGate in the Russian Federation, 284 scientific and educational institutions were identified and analyzed. Data was collected by institutions and the number of participants, then a rating of organizations with the largest (> 1000) representation of users was compiled, which included 28 Russian scientific and educational institutions. It was concluded that ResearchGate does not provide an opportunity to conduct research by country using existing search mechanisms, but does allow us to determine trends in the involvement of scientists from individual institutions in the network. The results of the study showed that Russian users are present in the network, and institutions quite unevenly in terms of the number of participants are represented. It is noted that the obtained data require additional clarification (a detailed analysis of the profiles of scientists and individual institutions, or a full-scale survey), given that some of the profiles on ResearchGate are not created by the scientists themselves, but are automatically added by the service. At the same time, the obtained result indicates that this method is applicable for identifying trends in the involvement of institutions. The list of leaders includes leading Russian universities that are included in openness ratings, and the ResearchGate platform is another way for them to declare themselves and get additional opportunities to present and share the results of their research.

1. DIGITAL 2024 Global Statistical Report for July. URL: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-july-global-statshot (accessed 08. 27. 2024).

2. Nikolaenko G., Malyushkin R., Samokish A. Global spread of digital scientific communication: on the example of ASNS ResearchGate. Sociology of Science and Technology, 2020, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 158–178. DOI: 10.24411/2079-0910-2020-13010

3. Dushina S. A. Do academic computer networks contribute to scientific collaboration? (Based on empirical research). Science and Technology: issues of history and theory : proceedings of the XXIX International Annual Scientific Conference «International Networks as a factor of integration of the scientific community» (St. Petersburg, November 12–18, 2018). St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Branch of the Russian National Committee for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2018, pp. 267–268.

4. Nikolaenko G. A. Prospects of using digital traces of researchers to analyze their communication strategies (using the example of the social network k Douban). Sociology of Science and Technology, 2019, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 93–109. DOI: 10.24411/2079-0910-2019-1205 (In Russ.)

5. Mason Sh., Sakurai Yu. Is the research gateway the way to the international academic community? Scientometry, 2021, vol. 126, no. 2, pp. 1149–1171. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03772-3

6. Khvatova T., Dushina S. Scientific online communication: the strategic landscape of ResearchGate users. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 2021, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 79–103. DOI: 10.4018/IJTHI.2021040105

7. Rodriguez M. V., Brandao V. S., Zarate L. E. Recommendations for scientific cooperation from researchgate. Proceedings of the Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems 2018, BRACIS 2018 (Sao Paulo, October 22–25, 2018). Sao Paulo, 2018, pp. 336–341. DOI: 10.1109/BRACIS.2018.00065

8. Regenerated R. The green world of open access and research gates – why do we need libraries? Library, 2024, vol. 58, no. 3–4, pp. 194–205. DOI: 10.1515/bd-2024-0034 (In Germ.)

9. Ortega H. L. Interrelation of altmetric and bibliometric indicators on academic social networking sites: using the example of CSIC members. Journal of Informetrics, 2015, vol. 9, Issue 1, pp. 39–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.004

10. Laakso M., Lindman J., Senyu S. Accessibility of research results in academic social networks: implications for stakeholders in academic publications. Electronic Markets, 2017, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 125–133.

11. Abdulkhayoglu M. A., Tiis B. Using ResearchGate and Google CSE to disambiguate the author’s name. Scientometrics, 2017, vol. 111, no. 3, pp. 1965–1985. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2341-y

12. Moskov V. M., Gordeev S. V., Sadovsky M. V. Monitoring the effectiveness of the work of leading BelSU scientists in the ResearchGate network. Regional Studies, 2018, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 124–143. (In Russ.)

13. Nikolaenko G. A. Life sciences in an academic social network Researchgate.net. Science and Technology: Issues of History and Theory: proceedings of the XXIX International Annual Scientific Conference of the St. Petersburg Branch of the Russian National Committee for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (St. Petersburg, November 12–18, 2018). St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Branch of the Russian National Committee for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2018, pp. 92–93. (In Russ.)

14. Desai M., Mehta R. G., Rana D. P. Analysis of the influence of ResearchGate followers on influence identification. Journal of Information Science, 2024, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 607–624. DOI: 10.1177/01655515221100716

15. Raffagelli J. E., Manka S. Studying the social activity of open research data on ResearchGate: impact on information literacy of researchers. Online Information Review, 2023, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 197–217.

16. Aravik H., Sopian A., Tohir A. Utilization of ResearchGate application as a source of scientific work literacy. AKM: action to the community, 2023, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 187–206. (In Ind.)

17. Shibarshina S. V. Scientific communication and collaboration on the Web as possible exchange areas. Sociology of Science and Technology, 2019, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 75–92. DOI: 10.24411/2079-0910-2019-12x4 (In Russ.)

18. Dushina S. A., Khvatova T. Yu., Nikolaenko G. A. Academic Internet networks: a scientific exchange platform or instagram for scientists? (using the example of Researchgate). Sociological Research, 2018, no. 5 (409), pp. 121–131. DOI: 10.7868/S0132162518050112 (In Russ.)

19. Nicholas D., Clark D., Herman E. ResearchGate: Reputation revealed. Scientific Publishing House, 2016, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 173–182. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1035

20. Yan V., Zhang Yu. Research universities on the ResearchGate social network website: an analysis of institutional differences, the level of research activity and formed social networks. Journal of Informetrics, 2017, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 385–400.

21. Khan N. A. et al. Managing collaborative research data using ResearchGate. Using Virtual Communities in Professional Practice. IGI Global, 2024, pp. 159–181. DOI: 10.4018/979-8-3693-1111-0.ch008

22. Copiello S. Research interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm from ResearchGate. Scientometrics, 2019, vol. 120, no. 1, pp. 351–360. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03124-w

23. Singh V. K., Srichandan S. S., Latabai H. H. ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and various indicators, and why? Scientometry, 2022, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 1515–1542.

24. Mickey S., Zygmuntowska M., Yesdal O. L., Al Ruwehi H. The digital presence of Norwegian scientists on academic networking sites – where and who are they? PLoS ONE, 2015, vol. 10, no. 11. e0 142 709. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142709

25. Kwon D. ResearchGate has dealt a blow to the copyright lawsuit. Nature, 2022, vol. 603, no. 7901, pp. 375–376. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-022-00513-9

26. Duina S. A., Shvatova T. V. Why study researchgate? New opportunities for scientific communication. Revolution and evolution: models of development in science, culture, and society : a collection of scientific articles. Nizhny Novgorod: N. I. Lobachevsky National Research Nizhny Novgorod State University. 2017, pp. 41–43. (In Russ.)

27. Abdollahi F., Mousavi S. S., Riakhinia N. Analysis of the scientific presence of Iranian women inventors on the social networks LinkedIn and ResearchGate. Scientometrics Research Journal, 2024, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 593–616.

28. Kumar A., Buragohain D. A study of correlation of ResearchGate indicators of scientific faculties of Central universities of Northeastern India using an altmetric approach. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 2024, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 155–175.

29. Guskov A. E., Kosyakov D. V., Grigorenko A. V., Sergeev A. E. Do Russian scientists use modern technologies of scientific communications? Bulletin of Novosibirsk State University. Series: Information Technology, 2018, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 74–85. DOI: 10.25205/1818-7900-2018-16-1-74-85 (In Russ.)

30. Redkina N. S. The influence of open scientific infrastructure on the development of the global market of information resources. Processing of scientific and technical information, 2024, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 161–172. DOI: 10.3103/S0147688224700096