Journal of Korean Medical Science

Korean Acad Medical Sciences (대한의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Researcher and Author Profiles: Opportunities, Advantages, and Limitations

  • Gasparyan, Armen Yuri (Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital) ;
  • Nurmashev, Bekaidar (South Kazakhstan State Pharmaceutical Academy) ;
  • Yessirkepov, Marlen (Department of Biochemistry, Biology and Microbiology, South Kazakhstan State Pharmaceutical Academy) ;
  • Endovitskiy, Dmitry A. (Voronezh State University) ;
  • Voronov, Alexander A. (Department of Marketing and Trade Deals, Kuban State University) ;
  • Kitas, George D. (Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital)
  • Received : 2017.09.06
  • Accepted : 2017.09.07
  • Published : 2017.11.10
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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.

Keywords

References

  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: 775-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-9995-x
  2. Galdino GM, Gotway M. The digital curriculum vitae. J Am Coll Radiol 2005; 2: 183-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2004.08.004
  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 Librariansh Inf Sci 2017; 49: 191-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000616632866
  4. Paiva CE, Araujo RL, Paiva BS, de Padua Souza C, Carcano 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: 209-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15323269.2017.1332934
  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: 412-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.12986
  8. Scopus.com. PlumX metrics [Internet]. Available at https://blog.scopus.com/topics/plumx-metrics [accessed on 31 August 2017].
  9. Peters I, Kraker P, Lex E, Gumpenberger C, Gorraiz J. Research data explored: an extended analysis of citations and altmetrics. Scientometrics 2016; 107: 723-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1887-4
  10. Champieux R. PlumX. J Med Libr Assoc 2015; 103: 63-4. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.1.019
  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: 1659-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2450-7
  12. Glanzel W, Heeffer S, Thijs B. A triangular model for publication and citation statistics of individual authors. Scientometrics 2016; 107: 857-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1870-0
  13. Clarivate Analytics. ResearcherID [Internet]. Available at http://wokinfo.com/researcherid/ [accessed on 31 August 2017].
  14. Mikki S, Zygmuntowska M, Gjesdal OL, Al Ruwehy HA. Digital presence of norwegian scholars on academic network sites--where and who are they? PLoS One 2015; 10: e0142709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142709
  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]. Available at http://www.emeraldcityjournal.com/2016/12/is-it-time-to-retire-researcherid/ [accessed on 31 August 2017].
  17. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Multidisciplinary bibliographic databases. J Korean Med Sci 2013; 28: 1270-5. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2013.28.9.1270
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2014.03.013
  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. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0381-5-14
  21. ORCID. Link works to your ORCID record from another system [Internet]. Available at https://support.orcid.org/knowledgebase/articles/188278-link-works-to-your-orcid-record-from-another-syste [accessed on 31 August 2017].
  22. National Center for Biotechnology Information (US). SciENcv: science experts network curriculum vitae [Internet]. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sciencv [accessed on 31 August 2017].
  23. Vrabel M. Online registries for researchers: using ORCID and SciENcv. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2016; 20: 667-8. https://doi.org/10.1188/16.CJON.667-668
  24. Davis P. Gaming Google Scholar citations, made simple and easy [Internet]. Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/12/12/gaming-google-scholar-citations-made-simple-and-easy/ [accessed on 31 August 2017].
  25. Naude 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. Lopez-Cozar ED, Robinson-Garcia N, Torres-Salinas D. The Google Scholar experiment: how to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2014; 65: 446-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23056
  27. Beall J. Google Scholar is filled with junk science [Internet]. Available at http://www.emeraldcityjournal.com/2014/11/google-scholar-is-filled-with-junk-science/ [accessed on 31 August 2017].
  28. Mingers J, Meyer M. Normalizing Google Scholar data for use in research evaluation. Scientometrics 2017;112: 1111-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2415-x
  29. Van Noorden R. Online collaboration: scientists and the social network. Nature 2014; 512: 126-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/512126a
  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: 623-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12681
  31. Jamali HR, Nabavi M. Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields. Scientometrics 2015; 105: 1635-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1642-2
  32. Thelwall M, Kousha K. ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: which finds more early citations? Scientometrics 2017; 112: 1125-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2400-4
  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: 2048-56. https://doi.org/10.19082/2048
  34. Yu MC, Wu YC, Alhalabi W, Kao HY, Wu WH. ResearchGate: an effective altmetric indicator for active researchers? Comput Human Behav 2016; 55: 1001-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.007
  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: 1643-7.
  36. Jamali HR. Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics 2017; 112: 241-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2291-4
  37. Madhusudhan M. Use of social networking sites by research scholars of the University of Delhi: a study. Int Inf Libr Rev 2012; 44: 100-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572317.2012.10762919
  38. Ovadia S. ResearchGate and Academia.edu: academic social networks. Behav Soc Sci Librar 2014; 33: 165-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2014.934093
  39. Williams AE, Woodacre MA. The possibilities and perils of academic social networking sites. Online Inf Rev 2016; 40: 282-94. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-10-2015-0327
  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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148257
  42. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Gerasimov AN, Kostyukova EI, Kitas GD. Scientific author names: errors, corrections, and identity profiles. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2016; 26: 169-73.
  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: 1453-6. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2014.29.11.1453
  44. Schiermeier Q. Research profiles: a tag of one's own. Nature 2015; 526: 281-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7572-281a
  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: 679-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.13381
  46. Allen L, Dawson S. Scholarly publishing for the network generation. Insights 2015; 28: 57-61. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.214
  47. ScienceOpen, Inc (US). What is public post-publication peer review? [Internet]. Available at http://about.scienceopen.com/what-is-post-publication-peer-review/ [accessed on 31 August 2017].
  48. Johnston D. Publons partners with ORCID to give more credit for peer review [Internet]. Available at https://orcid.org/blog/2015/10/12/publons-partners-orcid-give-more-credit-peer-review [accessed on 31 August 2017].
  49. Arunachalam S, Madhan M. Adopting ORCID as a unique identifier will benefit all involved in scholarly communication. Natl Med J India 2016; 29: 227-34.
  50. Bohannon J, Doran K. Introducing ORCID. Science 2017; 356: 691-2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.356.6339.691
  51. Preston A. Publons joins Clarivate Analytics: the future of peer review [Internet]. Available at https://publons.com/blog/publons-joins-clarivate-analytics/ [accessed on 31 August 2017].
  52. Culley T. Publons and ScholarOne to streamline reviewer recognition [Internet]. Available at https://publons.com/blog/scholarone/ [accessed on 31 August 2017].
  53. Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci 2015; 30: 360-4. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360
  54. Rajpert-De Meyts E, Losito S, Carrell DT. Rewarding peer-review work: the Publons initiative. Andrology 2016; 4: 985-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.12301
  55. Schneditz D, Slaughter MS. Announcing Publons to enhance reviewer experience. ASAIO J 2017; 63: 235. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAT.0000000000000584
  56. Ortega JL. Are peer-review activities related to reviewer bibliometric performance? A scientometric analysis of Publons. Scientometrics 2017; 112: 947-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2399-6
  57. Culley T. Media Sphera to recognise reviewers [Internet]. Available at https://publons.com/blog/mediasphera-partner/ [accessed on 31 August 2017].
  58. Dorsch I. Relative visibility of authors' publications in different information services. Scientometrics 2017; 112: 917-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2416-9
  59. Ortega JL. Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Inf Rev 2015; 39: 520-36. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-03-2015-0093
  60. Tran CY, Lyon JA. Faculty use of author identifiers and researcher networking tools. Coll Res Libr 2017; 78: 171-82. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.2.171
  61. Thelwall M, Kousha K. ResearchGate: disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2015; 66: 876-89. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23236
  62. Thelwall M, Kousha K. ResearchGate articles: age, discipline, audience size, and impact. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2017; 68: 468-79. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23675
  63. Bhardwaj RK. Academic social networking sites: comparative analysis of ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Mendeley and Zotero. Inf Learn Sci 2017; 118: 298-316. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-03-2017-0012
  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. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv032
  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: 401-13. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S131496
  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: 163-74. https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v27i2.9
  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: 2654-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13067
  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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0785-9
  72. Williams AE. Kudos: bringing your publications to life? Inf Learn Sci 2017; 118: 114-19. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-01-2017-0005
  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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183217

Cited by

  1. Fostering Strategic Changes in Publishing: Journal of Korean Medical Science in 2018 vol.33, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e8
  2. Inappropriate Authorship and Kinship in Research Evaluation vol.33, pp.13, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e105
  3. Measuring Individual Performance with Comprehensive Bibliometric Reports as an Alternative to h -Index Values vol.33, pp.18, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e138
  4. Researcher and Author Impact Metrics: Variety, Value, and Context vol.33, pp.18, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e139
  5. Steps towards quality of open access publishing vol.29, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.31138/mjr.29.4.184
  6. Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement vol.33, pp.46, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2018.33.e287
  7. A Multi-match Approach to the Author Uncertainty Problem vol.4, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2019-0006
  8. Predatory journals: Do not judge journals by their Editorial Board Members vol.41, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159x.2018.1556390
  9. Google Scholar Citation metrics of Pakistani LIS scholars: an overview vol.68, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-03-2018-0025
  10. Bridging identity challenges: why and how one library plugged ORCiD into their enterprise vol.37, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1108/lht-04-2018-0046
  11. La paulatina adopción de ORCID para la mejora de la identidad digital de las revistas científicas españolas en acceso abierto vol.33, pp.80, 2019, https://doi.org/10.22201/iibi.24488321xe.2019.80.57994
  12. Moving towards online rheumatology education in the era of COVID-19 vol.39, pp.11, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-020-05405-9
  13. Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers vol.58, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5114/reum.2020.101999
  14. Métricas alternativas de periódicos da Ciência da Informação vol.25, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5344/3740
  15. Research productivity of library and information science faculty in India and the United States : A comparison based on publications, citations and h-index vol.15, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/09737766.2021.1936272