J Korean Med Sci.  2017 Nov;32(11):1749-1756. 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.11.1749.

Researcher and Author Profiles: Opportunities, Advantages, and Limitations

• Gasparyan
• Nurmashev
• Yessirkepov M
• Endovitskiy DA
• Voronov AA
• Kitas GD

• KMID: 2390299
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.11.1749

Abstract

Currently available online profiling platforms offer various services for researchers and authors. Opening an individual account and filling it with scholarly contents increase visibility of research output and boost its impact. This article overviews some of the widely used and emerging profiling platforms, highlighting their tools for sharing scholarly items, crediting individuals, and facilitating networking. Global bibliographic databases and search platforms, such as Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar, are widely used for profiling authors with indexed publications. Scholarly networking websites, such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu, provide indispensable services for researchers poorly visible elsewhere on the Internet. Several specialized platforms are designed to offer profiling along with their main functionalities, such as reference management and archiving. The Open Researcher and Contributor Identification (ORCID) project has offered a solution to the author name disambiguation. It has been integrated with numerous bibliographic databases, platforms, and manuscript submission systems to help research managers and journal editors select and credit the best reviewers, and other scholarly contributors. Individuals with verifiable reviewer and editorial accomplishments are also covered by Publons, which is an increasingly recognized service for publicizing and awarding reviewer comments. Currently available profiling formats have numerous advantages and some limitations. The advantages are related to their openness and chances of boosting the researcher impact. Some of the profiling websites are complementary to each other. The underutilization of various profiling websites and their inappropriate uses for promotion of "˜predatory' journals are among reported limitations. A combined approach to the profiling systems is advocated in this article.

Keyword

Bibliography as Topic; Performance; Profile; Researcher; Author; Scholarly Journal; Information Retrieval

MeSH Terms

Awards and Prizes
Bibliography as Topic
Databases, Bibliographic
Humans
Information Storage and Retrieval
Internet
Research Personnel

Reference

1. Bornmann L. Measuring impact in research evaluations: a thorough discussion of methods for, effects of and problems with impact measurements. High Educ. 2017; 73:775–787.

2. Galdino GM, Gotway M. The digital curriculum vitae. J Am Coll Radiol. 2005; 2:183–188.

3. Danesh F, Fattahi R, Dayani MH. Stratification of Iranian LIS academics in terms of visibility, effectiveness and scientific and professional performance: research report part 1. J Librarian Inform Sci. 2017; 49:191–198.

4. Paiva CE, Araujo RL, Paiva BS, de Pádua Souza C, Cárcano FM, Costa MM, Serrano SV, Lima JP. What are the personal and professional characteristics that distinguish the researchers who publish in high- and low-impact journals? A multi-national web-based survey. Ecancermedicalscience. 2017; 11:718.

5. Pylarinou S, Kapidakis S. Tracking scholarly publishing of hospitals using MEDLINE, Scopus, WoS and Google Scholar. J Hosp Librariansh. 2017; 17:209–216.

6. Gao J, Zhou T. Retractions: stamp out fake peer review. Nature. 2017; 546:33.

7. Traill CL, Januszewski AS, Larkins RG, Keech AC, Jenkins AJ. Time to research Australian female physician-researchers. Intern Med J. 2016; 46:412–419.

8. Scopus.com. PlumX metrics [Internet]. accessed on 31 August 2017. Available at https://blog.scopus.com/topics/plumx-metrics.

9. Peters I, Kraker P, Lex E, Gumpenberger C, Gorraiz J. Research data explored: an extended analysis of citations and altmetrics. Scientometrics. 2016; 107:723–744.

10. Champieux R, Plum X. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015; 103:63–64.

11. Kotsemir M, Shashnov S. Measuring, analysis and visualization of research capacity of university at the level of departments and staff members. Scientometrics. 2017; 112:1659–1689.

12. Glänzel W, Heeffer S, Thijs B. A triangular model for publication and citation statistics of individual authors. Scientometrics. 2016; 107:857–872.

13. Clarivate Analytics. ResearcherID [Internet]. accessed on 31 August 2017. Available at http://wokinfo.com/researcherid/.

14. Mikki S, Zygmuntowska M, Gjesdal ØL, Al Ruwehy HA. Digital presence of norwegian scholars on academic network sites--where and who are they? PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0142709.

15. Wagner AB. Tips from the experts: author identification systems. Issue Sci Technol Librariansh. 2009; 59:F40K26HX.

16. Beall J. Is it time to retire researcherID? [Internet]. accessed on 31 August 2017. Available at http://www.emeraldcityjournal.com/2016/12/is-it-time-to-retire-researcherid/.

17. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Multidisciplinary bibliographic databases. J Korean Med Sci. 2013; 28:1270–1275.

18. Lu Z. PubMed and beyond: a survey of web tools for searching biomedical literature. Database (Oxford). 2011; 2011:baq036.

19. Johnson SB, Bales ME, Dine D, Bakken S, Albert PJ, Weng C. Automatic generation of investigator bibliographies for institutional research networking systems. J Biomed Inform. 2014; 51:8–14.

20. Andrade-Navarro MA, Palidwor GA, Perez-Iratxeta C. Peer2ref: a peer-reviewer finding web tool that uses author disambiguation. BioData Min. 2012; 5:14.

21. ORCID. Link works to your ORCID record from another system [Internet]. accessed on 31 August 2017. Available at https://support.orcid.org/knowledgebase/articles/188278-link-works-to-your-orcid-record-from-another-syste.

22. National Center for Biotechnology Information (US). SciENcv: science experts network curriculum vitae [Internet]. accessed on 31 August 2017. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sciencv.

23. Vrabel M. Online registries for researchers: using ORCID and SciENcv. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2016; 20:667–668.

24. Davis P. Gaming Google Scholar citations, made simple and easy [Internet]. accessed on 31 August 2017. Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/12/12/gaming-google-scholar-citations-made-simple-and-easy/.

25. Naudé F. Comparing downloads, mendeley readership and Google Scholar citations as indicators of article performance. Electron J Inf Syst Dev Ctries. 2017; 78:1–25.

26. López-Cózar ED, Robinson-García N, Torres-Salinas D. The Google Scholar experiment: how to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2014; 65:446–454.

27. Beall J. Google Scholar is filled with junk science [Internet]. accessed on 31 August 2017. Available at http://www.emeraldcityjournal.com/2014/11/google-scholar-is-filled-with-junk-science/.

28. Mingers J, Meyer M. Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation. Scientometrics. 2017; 112:1111–1121.

29. Van Noorden R; Online collaboration. scientists and the social network. Nature. 2014; 512:126–129.

30. Citrome L. My two favourite professional social networking sites: LinkedIn and ResearchGate - how they can help you, or hurt you. Int J Clin Pract. 2015; 69:623–624.

31. Jamali HR, Nabavi M. Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields. Scientometrics. 2015; 105:1635–1651.

32. Thelwall M, Kousha K. ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: which finds more early citations? Scientometrics. 2017; 112:1125–1131.

33. Batooli Z, Ravandi SN, Bidgoli MS. Evaluation of scientific outputs of Kashan University of Medical Sciences in Scopus Citation Database based on Scopus, ResearchGate, and Mendeley Scientometric Measures. Electron Physician. 2016; 8:2048–2056.

34. Yu MC, Wu YC, Alhalabi W, Kao HY, Wu WH. ResearchGate: an effective altmetric indicator for active researchers? Comput Human Behav. 2016; 55:1001–1006.

35. Memon AR. ResearchGate is no longer reliable: leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community. J Pak Med Assoc. 2016; 66:1643–1647.

36. Jamali HR. Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics. 2017; 112:241–254.

37. Madhusudhan M. Use of social networking sites by research scholars of the University of Delhi: a study. Int Inf Libr Rev. 2012; 44:100–113.

38. Ovadia S. ResearchGate and Academia.edu: academic social networks. Behav Soc Sci Librar. 2014; 33:165–169.

39. Williams AE, Woodacre MA. The possibilities and perils of academic social networking sites. Online Inf Rev. 2016; 40:282–294.

40. Megwalu A. Academic social networking: a case study on users’ information behavior. Adv Librariansh. 2015; 39:185–214.

41. Niyazov Y, Vogel C, Price R, Lund B, Judd D, Akil A, Mortonson M, Schwartzman J, Shron M. Open access meets discoverability: citations to articles posted to Academia.edu. PLoS One. 2016; 11:e0148257.

42. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Gerasimov AN, Kostyukova EI, Kitas GD. Scientific author names: errors, corrections, and identity profiles. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2016; 26:169–173.

43. Gasparyan AY, Akazhanov NA, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Systematic and open identification of researchers and authors: focus on open researcher and contributor ID. J Korean Med Sci. 2014; 29:1453–1456.

44. Schiermeier Q. Research profiles: a tag of one's own. Nature. 2015; 526:281–283.

45. Anstey A. How can we be certain who authors really are? Why ORCID is important to the British Journal of Dermatology. Br J Dermatol. 2014; 171:679–680.

46. Allen L, Dawson S. Scholarly publishing for the network generation. Insights. 2015; 28:57–61.

47. ScienceOpen, Inc (US). What is public post-publication peer review? [Internet]. accessed on 31 August 2017. Available at http://about.scienceopen.com/what-is-post-publication-peer-review/.

48. Johnston D. Publons partners with ORCID to give more credit for peer review [Internet]. accessed on 31 August 2017. Available at https://orcid.org/blog/2015/10/12/publons-partners-orcid-give-more-credit-peer-review.

49. Arunachalam S, Madhan M. Adopting ORCID as a unique identifier will benefit all involved in scholarly communication. Natl Med J India. 2016; 29:227–234.

50. Bohannon J, Doran K. Introducing ORCID. Science. 2017; 356:691–692.

51. Preston A. Publons joins Clarivate Analytics: the future of peer review [Internet]. accessed on 31 August 2017. Available at https://publons.com/blog/publons-joins-clarivate-analytics/.

52. Culley T. Publons and ScholarOne to streamline reviewer recognition [Internet]. accessed on 31 August 2017. Available at https://publons.com/blog/scholarone/.

53. Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015; 30:360–364.

54. Rajpert-De Meyts E, Losito S, Carrell DT. Rewarding peer-review work: the Publons initiative. Andrology. 2016; 4:985–986.

55. Schneditz D, Slaughter MS. Announcing Publons to enhance reviewer experience. ASAIO J. 2017; 63:235.

56. Ortega JL. Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? A scientometric analysis of Publons. Scientometrics. 2017; 112:947–962.

57. Culley T. Media Sphera to recognise reviewers [Internet]. accessed on 31 August 2017. Available at https://publons.com/blog/mediasphera-partner/.

58. Dorsch I. Relative visibility of authors' publications in different information services. Scientometrics. 2017; 112:917–925.

59. Ortega JL. Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Inf Rev. 2015; 39:520–536.

60. Tran CY, Lyon JA. Faculty use of author identifiers and researcher networking tools. Coll Res Libr. 2017; 78:171–182.

61. Thelwall M, Kousha K. ResearchGate: disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015; 66:876–889.

62. Thelwall M, Kousha K. ResearchGate articles: age, discipline, audience size, and impact. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2017; 68:468–479.

63. Bhardwaj RK. Academic social networking sites: comparative analysis of ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Mendeley and Zotero. Inf Learn Sci. 2017; 118:298–316.

64. Jamali HR, Nicholas D, Herman E. Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms. Res Eval. 2016; 25:37–49.

65. Meishar-Tal H, Pieterse E. Why do academics use academic social networking sites? Int Rev Res Open Distrib Learn. 2017; 18:1–22.

66. Kamath VV, Setlur K, Yerlagudda K. Oral lichenoid lesions - a review and update. Indian J Dermatol. 2015; 60:102.

67. Ayalew MB. Self-medication practice in Ethiopia: a systematic review. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017; 11:401–413.

68. Olayide AS, Halimat AJ, Samuel OA, Ganiyu RA, Soliu OA. Level of awareness and knowledge of breast cancer in Nigeria. A systematic review. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2017; 27:163–174.

69. Ma L, Ladisch M. Scholarly communication and practices in the world of metrics: an exploratory study. Proc Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2016; 53:1–4.

70. Smith DR, Watson R. Career development tips for today's nursing academic: bibliometrics, altmetrics and social media. J Adv Nurs. 2016; 72:2654–2661.

71. Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, Turner L, Barbour V, Burch R, Clark J, Galipeau J, Roberts J, Shea BJ. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 2017; 15:28.

72. Williams AE. Kudos: bringing your publications to life? Inf Learn Sci. 2017; 118:114–119.

73. Erdt M, Aung HH, Aw AS, Rapple C, Theng YL. Analysing researchers' outreach efforts and the association with publication metrics: A case study of Kudos. PLoS One. 2017; 12:e0183217.