ResearchGate’s RIS algorithm weights citations (50%) higher than open access (25%). Does this perpetuate the ‘publish-or-perish’ cycle while penalizing researchers who share preprints or data early? How can altmetrics reward transparency without sacrificing career impact?
I agree—ResearchGate’s current weighting (citations 50%, openness 25%) can unintentionally reinforce the publish-or-perish culture. Preprints and early data sharing promote transparency and accelerate science, but often don’t generate immediate citations, so their impact is undervalued.
A few ideas to improve this:
Give more weight to early engagement metrics like downloads, views, and dataset usage.
Include altmetrics—social media mentions, policy citations, and dataset reuse—as part of the score.
Recognize collaboration and reuse: citations of preprints, protocols, and datasets should count toward career impact.
References:
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A Manifesto. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto
Bornmann, L. (2014). Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 65(4), 742–754. DOI
Discussion point: How could platforms like ResearchGate better reward openness and early sharing without penalizing career progression
Where did you find these numbers? According to https://help.researchgate.net/hc/en-us/articles/14293473316753-Research-Interest-Score:
"The Research Interest Score uses a system for weighting the different types of interactions:
- An other read* has a weighting of 0.05.
- A full-text read* has a weighting of 0.15.
- A recommendation has a weighting of 0.25.
- A citation has a weighting of 0.5."
Anyway, RG's RIS should not be taken too seriously. It can be calculated only at this platform and has no meaning on others.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Materials Chemistry
- Polymer Chemistry