I support the comments by Chia-Lin with respect to RG Q&A and intellectual entertainment.

Every comparable metric in RG, Google Scholar, Scopus and Publons (WoS) that relates to the quality of academic research, including Citations and h-index, should be reported.

This would lead to an interesting research topic in itself.

We have to well distinguish between these academic sites, where each one has its own facilities...

To Chia-Lin,

Many thanks for your prescient comments, and insightful suggestion for an interesting research topic.

To Emad Kamil Hussein:

Many thanks for your distinguishing response.

The order of quality is as follows Publons, Scopus, RG and Google Scholar. The order of quantity is just the reverse case.

To Isaac Dinaharan:

Many thanks for your ordered response.

In view of the explanations given in the question by Prof. Dr. Michael John McAleer, and taking into account some additional facts (parameters), it can be concluded that RG, Google Scholar, Scopus and Publons (WoS) are mutually non-comparable Scientific databases (in both qualitative and quantiative sense).

To Romeo:

Many thanks for your insightful summary of the ongoing discussion.

Dear Michael John McAleer ,

These stats are based on the different ways the mentioned services are built and receive their input.

I agree with Isaac Dinaharan , in terms of quality or perhaps better said the accepted norm of validated quality in the scientific evaluation process and so on the order is Web of Science, Scopus, Researchgate, Google Scholar. In terms of quantity it is the other way around. Looking at an analysis of my own stats this is in line with this observation:

figure 1.jpg

For those interested read for example:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313240234_Comparison_of_Microsoft_Academic_Graph_with_Web_of_Science_Scopus_and_Google_Scholar

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lokman_Meho/publication/248843855_Impact_of_Data_Sources_on_Citation_Counts_and_Rankings_of_LIS_Faculty_Web_of_Science_vs/links/598027ebaca272d5681dbcfa/Impact-of-Data-Sources-on-Citation-Counts-and-Rankings-of-LIS-Faculty-Web-of-Science-vs.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kayvan_Kousha/publication/316217277_ResearchGate_vs_Google_Scholar_Which_finds_more_early_citations/links/5a25359baca2727dd87e9312/ResearchGate-vs-Google-Scholar-Which-finds-more-early-citations.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332593431_Information_and_tips_related_to_search_engines_like_Google_Scholar_and_other_ways_your_work_is_and_can_be_more_visible_on_the_net

To Rob:

Many thanks for the helpful and interesting statistics and figure.

Very nice to see comparing RG with Google Scholar, Scopus and Publons (WoS) and also comparison within like "RG provides Citations and h-index (including and excluding self-citations), Google Scholar provides Citations and h-index (all years and last 5 years), Scopus provides Total Citations and h-index, Publons provides Total Times Cited and h-index (from Web of Science "Core Collection"), RG, Google Scholar, Scopus and Publons (WoS) are mutually non-comparable Scientific databases (in both qualitative and quantitative sense)".

Also very good response in terms of quality in the scientific evaluation process discussed as Web of Science, Scopus, Researchgate, Google Scholar.

The above discussion has cleared some confusion and misinformation and we hope for some more clarifications from the discussion of experts.

RG provides an RG score, which is a measure of social activity among academics, and TRI, which is an academic research score that depends heavily on Citations.

The data bases differ according to the requirements for inclusion.

RG and Google Scholar seem to include everything that is available on the internet, so they are not as selective as Scopus or WoS.

To Dr Manzoor Hussain:

Many thanks for your detailed and informative response.

To Chia-Lin Chang:

Thank you for your helpful, informative and selective response.

In the previous answer (an hour ago), Prof. Dr. Chia-Lin Chang noticed that “RG and Google Scholar seem to include everything that is available on the internet,…” Moreover, RG and Google Scholar give possibilities to all their members to present any other their research that is not available on the internet (such as, unpublished article, preprint, chapter, conference paper, data, experimental findings, patent, poster, presentaion, research proposal, technical report, thesis etc.)

To Romeo:

Thank you for your helpful and informative response.

I agree with your assessment that RG enables numerous opportunities for academics to display their portfolio of activities.

It might be worth noting the following serious issue relating to the RG score:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_fatal_flaw_in_the_RG_score_if_you_care

Another possibility is that RG = Facebook for academics:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/RG_Facebook_for_academics

I would like to thank all the academics who have provided interesting and stimulating Answers to the Question.

To Chia-Lin Chang:

A belated thanks for your RG and Fb Answer.

To Maryam Kuzekanani :

Many thanks for your informative Answer about the lack of timeliness of updates.

RG, Google Scholar, Web of Science and Scopus being widely consulted by researchers and sometimes used in research evaluations..

For comarision of citation read this example:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1808/1808.05053.pdf

The difference is in data collection methids and citesearch.they didn't clearly show the exact equation for their calulations.

Following

To Amina Sultan :

Many thanks for your helpful Answer regarding the inclusion of all Citations.

To s.L. Borana :

Many thanks for your informative Answer regarding different research evaluations.

To Maryam Kuzekanani :

Many thanks for your helpful Answers regarding the different collections of Citations.

To Diary R. Sulaiman :

Many thanks for your informative Answer regarding the different methods of collecting Citations for different data bases.

To Jasim Hassen :

Many thanks for your interest in the Question.

All 4s have their own unique system of database collection. RG may have a very few deficits in enrollment, but Scopus+Publon are more restrictive & Scholar is very liberal. So, RG is not unpleasant!

To Rabiul Alam:

Many thanks for your instructive Answer that compares the alternative Citations data bases.

Michael John McAleer This is a worthy question for discussion. Kudos, Prof. I have just little contribution in terms of observation. Those ratings are not on the same basement for justifiable comparisons. I have taken extra time to monitor several citation rates (an indication of any index) on Google scholar compared to that of RG and Publon. Sincerely yours, Google scholar has far more citations and I had erroneously believed it is more veritable on that yardstick, not until when I further tracked an indication of RG where I later realized that citation of RG is lower considerably, owing to the fact that many articles who cite your papers are not there uploaded and thus, the same paper on RG and Google scholar receives significantly wide difference in citations. For example: Compare the citation of any paper, say:

"Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: the role of histological grade", you will find out that Google "search" has 515 citations while RG has 315. RG uses only the papers uploaded on their platform, hence the lower citation index. The same thing applies to Publon for Web of Science.

To Kamoru A. Adedokun :

Many thanks for your detailed and thoughtful Answer, as well as an interesting comparative analysis.

To Maryam Kuzekanani :

You might try: [email protected]

Different internet websites use different definitions, methodologies and algorithms to collect data.

I think the arrangement is as follows scopus, RG,publons and google scholar

To Maryam Kuzekanani :

As reported by Chia-Lin Chang, different websites use different definitions of papers, articles, publications, and unpublished articles, as well as different methodologies, in collecting Citations data.

To Shakir Tuleab :

Many thanks for your ranked Answer.

To Maryam Kuzekanani :

You did well to receive a detailed response from the RG Support team.

Let's wait and see.

To Maryam Kuzekanani:

The journals “European Endodontic Journal” and “Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry” are indexed in the base/coverage “Emerging Sources Citation Index” - ESCI (http://mjl.clarivate.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&Word=*European%20endodontic%20journal and http://mjl.clarivate.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&Word=*and%20community%20dentistry), but they are not indexed in the base “Science Citation Index Expanded” - SCIE (or/and SCI). Moreover, the journal “International Endodontic Journal” is indexed as Science Citation Index Expanded - SCIE (http://mjl.clarivate.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&Word=*international%20endodontic%20journal).

It seems that there are numerous ESCI – journals which together with related citations are not accounted in RG.

Following

To Maryam Kuzekanani :

Many thanks for your interesting Answers.

To Amina Sultan :

Many thanks for your supportive Answer.

To Jasim Hassen :

Many thanks for your interest in the Question.

Google Scholar definitely has the most errors in recording Citations, and the associated h-index, especially for Chinese family names.

Dear Chia-Lin Chang,

There are some (non-Chinese academics) whose papers are cited in Google Scholar before they their birth!

To Chia-Lin Chang:

I am sure you are right.

Many thanks.

To Maryam Kuzekanani :

Many thanks for your informative Answer.

To Romeo:

Many thanks for your confirmatory Answer.

Dear Chia-Lin Chang and Michael John McAleer,

There are some recent mathematical papers which are cited by A. Eeinstein!!!

To Maryam Kuzekanani :

I agree with your helpful Answer.

To Romeo:

I wonder if they are related?

To Maryam Kuzekanani:

It seems that all SCIE/SCI journals are included in RG list of official journals. This is also the case for several new journals indexed in SCOPUS, but not on some new these journals.

Dear Michael John McAleer,

In particular, one of my paper is cited by A. Einstein on Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=wE9XgSAAAAAJ).

To Romeo:

Congratulations.

Does A. Einstein have an RG score or TRI?

Dear Michael John McAleer,

There is a manner that every your paper to be cited in Google Scholar by A. Einstein (Albert Einstein).

To Romeo:

I am sure that A. Einstein has never cited my work.

Dear Michael John McAleer,

I know that. However, there is a manner that every your paper to be cited in Google Scholar by A. Eeinstein (Albert Eeinstein).

Well explained

To Anjay kumar Mishra :

Thank you for your interest in the Question.

To Romeo:

Does A. Eeinstein have an RG score or TRI?

Dear Michael John McAleer,

There is no RG profile of Albert Einstein, but his Google Scholar profile is available at https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=do7frTMAAAAJ.

Impressive Citations and h-index.

I really do not see any inferential difference between 101 in PubMed and 77 (RG) citations. There may numerical difference but the conclusion will say that anyone who has any of those values has done well in research. The database may explain the difference and the expectation is that they cannot be equal.

To Maryam Kuzekanani :

Many thanks for the helpful updates regarding your publications.

To Chuck:

Many thanks for your helpful statistical Answer.

I run workshops on how to write academic papers and this interesting question confusing. First you have ranking of journals, second is counting citations of author. Quite different. WofS was started in 1964 and emerged as a way of helping science share research, citations simply counted to support validity of research design as mainly experiments/positivistic. SCI/SSCI accreditation is not free , it is owned by Thompson Reuters/clarivate Analytics.Getting SSCI accreditation takes time, and the JIF has more kudos. This service supported by big 5 publishers who get money from universities for access to journal databases. Scopus started in 2004 is owned by Elselvier, and is free, no subscription. Scopus journal ranking is a citescore, and scimago Q1-Q4. Many institutions are using Scopus, as free. We are all advised to target journals high SSCI or in Scopus..it's more complicated than that. The open access debate is game changing and the Chinese Swiss MDPI company...watch this space. The ranking of academics is what Google is doing for us(remember started as a search system, Google's main business now biodata which they auction and sell).

Google counts an academics citations, as does researchgate but you have to know which journals are reputable. However, having high citations matters as means your work read and valued. But system was really set up for scientists. Researchgate set up in 2008 by a virologist, (had various investors including Bill Gates) again science focused, and they have created various measures for reputation, RG, research interest, but citations main currency. It is largest academic social networking cite. It is also evaluating our biodata. You get an academic reputation by publishing. All services skewed to sciences where 10 authors common, so citations, RG etc are higher. So to be clear, citations counted in googlescholar and researchgate focus on individual, and the Scopus and WofS rank the journal....but we are in an open access revolution so watch this space.....

Although all of these data sources differ in the speed of their monitoring of research, the researcher himself will not differ from his peers in term of all score types

To Maryam Kuzekanani :

Many thanks for your several Answers.

Different internet data sets will lead to different metrics, but the relative rankings should be similar if all academics are treated similarly on different sites.

To Beverly Dawn Metcalfe :

Many thanks for your detailed, informative and helpful Answer,

To Khaled Khleifat :

Many thanks for the helpful information about the speed of updating data by the various sources.

Dear Maryam Kuzekanani ,

Many thanks for having such a close look at my (personal) statistics. I noticed your frustration on all the flaws the various indexing services have:

-Google scholar though (normally) picking up most citations do miss some (while for example Scopus and Researchgate do count them nicely). So far my experience is that eventually (can take more than a year or even multiple years…) GS do pick up those missed citations.

-Researchgate primarily pick up citations of papers that are uploaded here that is the main reason why RG shows lower citations counts than GS…HOWEVER…even when the paper that cites you is uploaded the search engine (or citation recognizing software or whatever) frequently fail to recognize a reference (so even in the case a full text version is uploaded).

-PubMed (and Pubfacts) almost if not completely is based on PubMed indexed journals and are therefore normally have lower citation counts. Your case seems to be an exception since you operate solely in the field that is to a large extend covered by PubMed indexed journals (keep in mind that a lot of for example biophysical and bioinformatics journals are not indexed in PubMed).

So yes I still feel that for most researchers Researchgate shows higher citations than in let say PubMed because they cover a much broader spectrum of journals (and also count citations of book chapters, preprints, personal documents, PhD thesis and so on). But when most part of your citations comes from PubMed indexed (and consequently often Scopus and SCI indexed as well) journals then it very much depend on how many of those papers have a full-text version of these papers uploaded here in RG (and how well the mentioned references are recognized).

Hope this clarifies a bit of your observed discrepancies. Conclusion is that none of the indexing services is flawless and at the very best they are giving indicative numbers that should be used only in terms of ‘order of magnitude’.

Best regards.

PS. In relation to your remark about recommendations don't wory, these are not adding anything to your score (only publication recommendations and recommendations on a question you started do).

To Maryam Kuzekanani :

Many thanks for your several helpful Answers.

To Rob Keller:

Many thanks for your detailed and informative Answer.

What about Scopus and Publons / WoS / Clarivate Analytics?

To Maryam Kuzekanani :

You can fix the Citations you give, but not the Citations you receive, except for self citations.

Dear Michael John McAleer ,

You wondered and “What about Scopus and WoS”.

Well as said by others the citations counted by Clarivate Analytics (through their Web of Science group) and which can be viewed in Publon ‘limits’ itself to journals included in their JCR index (see attachment). Not all journals are indexed here (not even all Scopus journals) so consequently their citation count is lower than RG (and Scopus).

Scopus limits itself to citations counts in their own database (see attachment) but they include (some) book chapter citations as well.

WoS citations are considered the most valuable for scientific evaluation in the academic community. The database is slow but is fairly reliable (they do not miss much of what they are supposed to index). Same is true for Scopus although this database is a bit slow with their updates as well…no one can beat Google Scholar in that respect.

Best regards.

To Rob Keller:

Many thanks for a comprehensive and informative Answer.

Rob Keller's Answers have been unusually helpful.

I am replying to Isaac so we are all clear. I run workshops on how to write academic papers and this interesting question confusing. First you have ranking of journals, second is counting citations of author. Quite different. WofS was started in 1964 and emerged as a way of helping science share research, citations simply counted to support validity of research design as mainly experiments/positivistic. SCI/SSCI accreditation is not free , it is owned by Thompson Reuters/clarivate Analytics. Getting SSCI for journal accreditation takes time, and the JIF has more kudos. This service supported by big 5 publishers who get money from universities for access to journal databases. Scopus started in 2004, is owned by Elselvier, and is free, no subscription. Scopus journal ranking is a citescore, and scimago Q1-Q4. Many institutions are using Scopus, as free. We are all advised to target journals with high SSCI or in Scopus..but it's more complicated than that. As Rob mentioned WofS more valued in unis as has longer record, and getting citation index is measure of academic rigour. The issue for academics is publishing in journals that are counted in lists, as not all journals are in Scopus or WofS . So you can publish an article but it may not be counted. Researchgate and Google collate citations of academics. Beale predatory journal list opened up debate about many journals that were being created with publication fees. The open access debate is game changing and the Chinese Swiss MDPI company...watch this space. The article processing fee is now accepted and paid by 62 unis in UK...and is changing funding models for academic publishing. The ranking of academics is what Google is doing for us(remember started as a search system, Google's main business now biodata which they auction and sell). Google counts an academics citations, as does researchgate but you have to know which journals are reputable. As Rob said there is variation in how citations are counted. However, having high citations matters as it means your work read and valued. But system was really set up for scientists.....academics need to always look at publisher, editorial aim and editorial board first, rather than look at journal lists.....

Maryam...you need to publish in established journals that are included in WofS or Scopus. Book chapters are not usually counted. But, I think having book chapters is good to show you are working in partnership with fellow scholars. It will then lead to eventually your own book, where in some unis full Professor only granted to those who have single author book. This view is changing alot now, as journal citations are used to evaluate uni rankings

Dear Beverly Dawn Metcalfe :

Thank you for your detailed, comprehensive and informative Answers.

WoS / Publons / Clarivate Analytics is the gold standard by virtue of its long history, followed closely by Scopus, and more distantly by Google Scholar and RG.

As per my view Publons, Scopus, RG and Google Scholar.

To Maryam Kuzekanani :

Many thanks for your informative and helpful answers.

To Chia-Lin Chang :

Many thanks for your informative and supportive Answers.

To Beverly Dawn Metcalfe :

Many thanks for your detailed and helpful Answers.

To Gopal Shukla :

Many thanks for your helpful ranked Answer.

To Maryam Kuzekanani :

Chuck A Arize was referring to statistical differences, not numerical differences.

I have stated previously that qualitative rankings would be unlikely to be affected as other academics would face a similar situation to yours.

To Maryam Kuzekanani :

I cannot answer your queries as they are not associated with RG.

To various colleagues the answers I gave about ranking of journals and individual citation processes have been deleted. These were not critical but answering queries. This obviously is a highly contentious issue The power and politics of publishers, and new corporations entering this....,.

To Beverly Dawn Metcalfe and Maryam Kuzekanani :

You are free to do what you wish on RG.

Liked is not an option on RG.

To Maryam Kuzekanani :

At your request, I have deleted all the Recommendations on this thread.

I cannot delete any Recommendations given by other academics.

Not sure what that means Michael, I feel you have given vey informative answers