ResearchGate

{{short description|Scientific social network (launched 2008)}} {{Infobox website | name = ResearchGate | logo = ResearchGate logo.svg | url = {{official URL|researchgate.net}} | type = Social network service for scientists | owner = ResearchGate GmbH | author = {{plainlist| * Ijad Madisch * Sören Hofmayer * Horst Fickenscher }} | headquarters = Berlin, Germany | area_served = Worldwide | current_status = active | industry = Internet | language = English | launch_date = {{start date and age|df=yes|paren=yes|2008|05}} | num_users = {{increase}} 25 million ({{as of|2023|09|20|alt=September 2023}})<ref name="ResearchGate">{{cite web | url = https://www.researchgate.net/press | title = ResearchGate turns 12 | website = ResearchGate | access-date = 2020-08-12 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200801054344/https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/researchgate-turns-12/ | archive-date = 2020-08-01 | url-status = live }}</ref> }} '''ResearchGate''' is a commercial social networking site for scientists and researchers<ref>{{cite web |url=http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2015/12/a-social-networking-site-is-not-an-open-access-repository/ |title=A social networking site is not an open access repository |author=Office of Scholarly Communication |publisher=University of California |access-date=2016-12-03 |date=December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160711021056/http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2015/12/a-social-networking-site-is-not-an-open-access-repository/ |archive-date=2016-07-11 |url-status=live }}</ref> to share papers, ask and answer questions, and find collaborators.<ref name="NYTimes 1.16.12">{{cite news|last=Lin|first=Thomas|title=Cracking open the scientific process|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/open-science-challenges-journal-tradition-with-web-collaboration.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all|newspaper=The New York Times|date=17 January 2012|access-date=2014-06-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131206112857/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/open-science-challenges-journal-tradition-with-web-collaboration.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all|archive-date=2013-12-06|url-status=live}}</ref> According to a 2014 study by ''Nature'' and a 2016 article in ''Times Higher Education'', it is the largest academic social network in terms of active users,<ref name="THE">{{cite web |last1=Matthews |first1=David |title=Do academic social networks share academics' interests? |url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/do-academic-social-networks-share-academics-interests |website=Times Higher Education |date=7 April 2018|access-date=2016-04-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160417100025/https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/do-academic-social-networks-share-academics-interests |archive-date=2016-04-17 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="nature140813"/> although other services have more registered users, and a 2015–2016 survey suggests that almost as many academics have Google Scholar profiles.<ref name=InnovationsSurvey/>

While reading articles does not require registration, people who wish to become site members need to have an email address at a recognized institution or to be manually confirmed as a published researcher in order to sign up for an account.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Signing+up+for+ResearchGate |title=Signing up for ResearchGate: My email address isn't recognized. Can I still sign up? |website=ResearchGate |access-date=2016-04-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160411061608/https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Signing+up+for+ResearchGate |archive-date=2016-04-11 |url-status=live }}</ref> Articles are free to read by visitors, however additional features (such as job postings or advertisements) are accessible only as a paid subscription. Members of the site each have a user profile and can upload research output including papers, data, chapters, negative results, patents, research proposals, methods, presentations, and software source code. Users may also follow the activities of other users and engage in discussions with them. Users are also able to block interactions with other users.

The site has been criticized for sending unsolicited email invitations to coauthors of the articles listed on the site that were written to appear as if the email messages were sent by the other coauthors of the articles (a practice the site said it had discontinued as of November 2016<ref name="invite change"/>) and for automatically generating apparent profiles for non-users who have sometimes felt misrepresented by them.<ref name="nature140813" /> A study found that over half of the uploaded papers appear to infringe copyright, because the authors uploaded the publisher's version.<ref name=":0" />

==Features== ''The New York Times'' described the site as a mashup of Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.<ref name="NYTimes 1.16.12"/> Site members may follow a research interest, in addition to following other individual members.<ref name="Neal2012"/> It has a blogging feature for users to write short reviews on peer-reviewed articles.<ref name="Neal2012"/> ResearchGate indexes self-published information on user profiles to suggest members to connect with others who have similar interests.<ref name="NYTimes 1.16.12"/> When a member posts a question, it is fielded to others that have identified on their user profile that they have a relevant expertise.<ref name="two"/> It also has private chat rooms where users can share data, edit shared documents, or discuss confidential topics.<ref name="Crawford2011"/> The site also features a research-focused job board.<ref name=AboutUs>{{cite web |url=https://www.researchgate.net/about |title=About us |work=ResearchGate |access-date=2016-04-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160408200451/https://www.researchgate.net/about |archive-date=2016-04-08 |url-status=live }}</ref>

{{As of|2020}}, it has more than 17 million users,<ref name=ResearchGate/> with its largest user-bases coming from Europe and North America.<ref name=Scott2014 /> Most of ResearchGate's users are involved in medicine or biology,<ref name="Neal2012"/><ref name="Crawford2011"/> though it also has participants from engineering, law, computer science, agricultural sciences, and psychology, among others.<ref name="Neal2012">{{cite book|author=Diane Rasmussen Neal |title=Social Media for Academics: A Practical Guide |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9l9EAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA28|date=6 August 2012|publisher=Elsevier Science|isbn=978-1-78063-319-0|pages=28}}</ref>

ResearchGate published an author-level metric in the form of an "RG Score" since 2012.<ref name=rgscorebb>[https://www.researchgate.net/researchgate-updates/removing-the-rg-score Why we’re removing the RG Score (and what’s next)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220413140344/https://www.researchgate.net/researchgate-updates/removing-the-rg-score |date=2022-04-13 }} ResearchGate. 2022.</ref> RG score is not a citation impact measure. RG Scores have been reported to be correlated with existing author-level metrics, but have also been criticized as having questionable reliability and an unknown calculation methodology.<ref name="doi10.1002/asi.23236"/><ref name="CHB" /><ref name="Kraker" /><ref name="Jordan"/> In March 2022 ResearchGate announced they would remove the RG Score after July 2022.<ref name=rgscorebb/> ResearchGate does not charge fees for putting content on the site and does not require peer review.<ref name=Forbes>{{cite web|last=Dolan|first=Kerry A.|title=How Ijad Madisch Aims To Disrupt Science Research With A Social Network|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2012/07/19/how-ijad-madisch-aims-to-disrupt-science-research-with-a-social-network/|website=Forbes|date=19 July 2012|access-date=2012-08-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120822031034/http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2012/07/19/how-ijad-madisch-aims-to-disrupt-science-research-with-a-social-network/|archive-date=2012-08-22|url-status=live}}</ref>

==History== ResearchGate was founded in 2008<ref name="two">{{cite news|title=Failure Is the Next Opportunity|first=Quentin|last=Hardy|date=3 August 2012|access-date=2014-06-26|url=http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/failure-is-the-next-opportunity/?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170918021900/https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/failure-is-the-next-opportunity/?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%253Aw%252C|archive-date=2017-09-18|url-status=live}}</ref> by virologist Ijad Madisch, who remains the company's CEO,<ref name=THE/><ref name="NYTimes 1.16.12"/> with physician Sören Hofmayer, and computer scientist Horst Fickenscher.<ref name=AboutUs/> It started in Boston, Massachusetts, and moved to Berlin, Germany, shortly afterwards.<ref name=Scott2014>{{cite news |title=Europeans look beyond their borders |first=Mark |last=Scott |date=17 April 2014 |url=http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/europeans-look-beyond-their-borders/ |access-date=2014-06-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150908040447/http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/europeans-look-beyond-their-borders/ |archive-date=2015-09-08 |url-status=live }}</ref>

The company's first round of funding, in 2010, was led by the venture capital firm Benchmark.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/pda/2010/sep/08/researchgate-funding-round|title=ResearchGate brings in strong funding round for 'scientific Facebook'|newspaper=The Guardian|year=2010|access-date=2010-08-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141207233750/http://www.theguardian.com/media/pda/2010/sep/08/researchgate-funding-round|archive-date=2014-12-07|url-status=live}}</ref> Benchmark partner Matt Cohler became a member of the board and participated in the decision to move to Berlin.<ref name=Imbert2012 />

The website began with few features, and developed based on input from scientists.<ref name="NYTimes 1.16.12"/> From 2009 to 2011, the number of users of the site grew from 25,000 to more than 1 million.<ref name="Crawford2011">{{cite journal|last1=Crawford|first1=Mark |title=Biologists Using Social-networking Sites to Boost Collaboration|journal=BioScience|volume=61|issue=9|year=2011|pages=736|issn=0006-3568|doi=10.1525/bio.2011.61.9.18|doi-access=free |bibcode=2011BiSci..61..736C }}</ref>

A second round of funding led by Peter Thiel's Founders Fund was announced in February 2012.<ref name=Imbert2012>{{cite web |url= http://venturevillage.eu/founders-fund-invests-in-ijad-madischs-researchgate-we-ask-him-the-most-creative-questions-so-far |title= Founders Fund invests in the Facebook for scientists: Founder Ijad Madisch on confidence, Luke Nosek, and what the world needs more of |website= VentureVillage |date= 22 February 2012 |first= Marguerite |last= Imbert |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130826035452/http://venturevillage.eu/founders-fund-invests-in-ijad-madischs-researchgate-we-ask-him-the-most-creative-questions-so-far |archive-date= 26 August 2013 }}</ref> On June 4, 2013, it closed Series C financing arrangements for $35M from investors including Bill Gates.<ref>{{cite news |url = https://techcrunch.com/2013/06/04/bill-gates-benchmark-and-more-pour-35m-into-researchgate-the-professional-network-for-scientists/ |title = Bill Gates, Benchmark And More Pour $35M Into ResearchGate, The Social Network For Scientists |journal = TechCrunch |date = 4 June 2013 |access-date = 2013-06-08 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130608085701/http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/04/bill-gates-benchmark-and-more-pour-35m-into-researchgate-the-professional-network-for-scientists/ |archive-date = 2013-06-08 |url-status = live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title='Facebook for scientists' ResearchGate raises $35M led by Bill Gates and prepares to release an API|url=https://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/06/04/researchgate-raises-35-million-series-c-from-bill-gates-and-tenaya-capital/|publisher=The Next Web|first=Ken|last=Yeung|date=4 June 2013|access-date=2018-06-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180905022901/https://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/06/04/researchgate-raises-35-million-series-c-from-bill-gates-and-tenaya-capital/|archive-date=2018-09-05|url-status=live}}</ref>

The company grew from 12 employees in 2011 to 120 in 2014.<ref name="NYTimes 1.16.12"/><ref name=Scott2014 /> As of 2016, it had about 300 employees, including a sales staff of 100.<ref name=Bloomberg2016>{{cite news|last1=Satariano|first1=Adam|title=Bill Gates-Backed Research Network Targets Advertising Revenue|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/bill-gates-backed-research-network-targets-advertising-revenues|access-date=2016-11-29|website=Bloomberg|date=15 November 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161130040113/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/bill-gates-backed-research-network-targets-advertising-revenues|archive-date=2016-11-30|url-status=live}}</ref>

ResearchGate's competitors include Academia.edu, Google Scholar, and Mendeley,<ref name="THE"/> as well as new competitors that emerged in the last decade like Semantic Scholar. In 2016, Academia.edu reportedly had more registered users (about 34 million versus 11 million<ref name=Bloomberg2016/>) and higher web traffic, but ResearchGate was substantially larger in terms of active usage by researchers.<ref name="THE"/><ref name="nature140813" /> The fact that ResearchGate restricts its user accounts to people at recognized institutions and published researchers may explain the disparity in active usage, as a high percentage of the accounts on Academia.edu are lapsed or inactive.<ref name="THE"/><ref name="nature140813" /> In a 2015–2016 survey of academic profile tools, about as many respondents have ResearchGate profiles and Google Scholar profiles, but almost twice as many respondents use Google Scholar for search than use ResearchGate for accessing publications.<ref name=InnovationsSurvey>[https://101innovations.wordpress.com/ Innovations in Scholarly Communication]. 2016. Universiteit Utrecht, accessed 2016-12-02. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161209150914/https://101innovations.wordpress.com/ |date=2016-12-09 }}.</ref>

Madisch has said the company's business strategy is focused on highly targeted advertising based on analysis of the activities of users, saying "Imagine you could click on a microscope mentioned in a paper and buy it", and estimating the spending on science at $1 trillion per year under the control of a "relatively small number of people".<ref name="THE"/>

In November 2015 they acquired additional funding of $52.6 million from a range of investors including Goldman Sachs, Benchmark Capital, Wellcome Trust and Bill Gates, but did not announce this until February 2017.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/technology/science-research-researchgate-gates-goldman.html|title=A Facebook-Style Shift in How Science Is Shared|last=Scott|first=Mark|date=28 February 2017|work=The New York Times|access-date=2017-03-01 |issn=0362-4331 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170301064312/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/technology/science-research-researchgate-gates-goldman.html|archive-date=2017-03-01|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.researchinformation.info/news/researchgate-announces-52m-investment|title=ResearchGate announces $52m investment|website=Research Information |date=28 February 2017 |language=en |access-date=2017-03-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170301181223/https://www.researchinformation.info/news/researchgate-announces-52m-investment|archive-date=2017-03-01|url-status=live}}</ref> Losses increased from €5.4m in 2014 to €6.2m in 2015, but ResearchGate's CEO expressed optimism that they would break even eventually.<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|url=https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/05/researchgate-ceo-denies-scraping-accounts-from-rival-site-to-generate-sign-ups/|title=ResearchGate CEO denies scraping accounts from rival site to generate sign-ups|last=Perez|first=Sarah|work=TechCrunch|access-date=2017-12-08|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171208122328/https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/05/researchgate-ceo-denies-scraping-accounts-from-rival-site-to-generate-sign-ups/|archive-date=2017-12-08|url-status=live}}</ref>

ResearchGate, Elsevier and American Chemical Society settled their lawsuit on 15 September 2023.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/press-newsroom/acs-elsevier-and-researchgate-resolve-litigation-with-solution-to-support-researchers|title=ACS, Elsevier, and ResearchGate resolve litigation, with solution to support researchers|website=ResearchGate Press Page|language=en-US|date=15 September 2023|access-date=2023-09-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.433643/gov.uscourts.mdd.433643.127.0.pdf|title=FINAL ORDER AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher on 9/15/2023.}}</ref>

As of January 2023, ResearchGate has partnered with Sage to distribute open access content.<ref>{{Cite web |title=ResearchGate and Sage expand Journal Home partnership {{!}} Research Information |url=https://www.researchinformation.info/news/researchgate-and-sage-expand-journal-home-partnership |access-date=2024-01-17 |website=www.researchinformation.info |date=16 January 2024 }}</ref>

==Reception== A 2009 article in ''BusinessWeek'' reported that ResearchGate was a "potentially powerful link" in promoting innovation in developing countries by connecting scientists from those nations with their peers in industrialized nations.<ref name="bw">{{cite news |first=Steve |last=Hamm |date=7 December 2009 |title=ResearchGATE and its Savvy use of the Web |newspaper=BusinessWeek |access-date=2014-06-26 |url=http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/dec2009/id2009127_441475.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091213010126/http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/dec2009/id2009127_441475.htm |archive-date=2009-12-13 |url-status=dead }}</ref> It said the website had become popular largely due to its ease of use. It also said that ResearchGate had been involved in several notable cross-country collaborations between scientists that led to substantive developments.<ref name="bw"/>

Academic reception of ResearchGate remains generally positive, as recent reviews of extant literature show an accepting audience with broad coverage of concepts.<ref name="Williams2015">{{cite journal|last1=Williams|first1=Ann|title=The possibilities and perils of academic social networking sites|journal=Online Information Review|year=2016 |volume=40|issue=2|pages=282–294|doi=10.1108/OIR-10-2015-0327}}</ref> A 2012 paper published in ''The International Information & Library Review'' conducted a survey with 160 respondents and reported that out of those respondents using social networking "for academic purposes", Facebook and ResearchGate were the most popular at the University of Delhi, but also "a majority of respondents said using SNSs [Social Networking Sites] may be a waste of time".<ref name="Madhusudhan2012">{{cite journal|last1=Madhusudhan|first1=Margam|title=Use of social networking sites by research scholars of the University of Delhi: A study|journal=The International Information & Library Review|volume=44|issue=2|year=2012|pages=100–113|issn=1057-2317|doi=10.1016/j.iilr.2012.04.006}}</ref>

Although ResearchGate is used internationally, its uptake—as of 2014—is uneven, with Brazil having particularly many users and China having few when compared to the number of publishing researchers.<ref name="doi10.1002/asi.23236">{{Cite journal| doi = 10.1002/asi.23236| title = ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship?| journal = Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology| volume = 66| issue = 5| pages = 876–889| year = 2014| last1 = Thelwall| first1 = M.| last2 = Kousha| first2 = K.| url = http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~cm1993/papers/ResearchGate.pdf| citeseerx = 10.1.1.589.5396| s2cid = 8974197| access-date = 2018-07-30| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180218233038/http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~cm1993/papers/ResearchGate.pdf| archive-date = 2018-02-18| url-status = live}}</ref>

In a 2014 study by ''Nature'', 88 percent of the responding scientists and engineers said that they were aware of ResearchGate<ref name="nature140813" />{{Rp|Q1}} and would use it when "contacted", but less than 10% said they would use it to actively discuss research with 40% instead preferring to use Twitter when discussing research.<ref name="nature140813" /> ResearchGate was visited regularly by half of those surveyed by ''Nature'', coming second to Google Scholar. 29 percent of regular visitors had signed up for a profile on ResearchGate in the past year,<ref name="nature140813" /> and 35% of the survey participants were invited by email.<ref name="nature140813" />

A 2016 article in ''Times Higher Education'' reported that in a global survey of 20,670 people who use academic social networking sites, ResearchGate was the dominant network and was twice as popular as others: 61 percent of respondents who had published at least one paper had a ResearchGate profile.<ref name="THE" /> Another study reported that "relatively few academics appear to post questions and answers", but instead use it only as an "online CV".<ref name="Jordan" />

In the context of the big deal cancellations by several library systems in the world, the wide usage of ResearchGate was credited as one of the factors which reduced the apparent value of the subscriptions to toll access resources.<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Andrés|last1=Fernández-Ramos|first2=María Blanca|last2=Rodríguez Bravo|first3=María Luisa|last3=Alvite Díez|first4=Lourdes|last4=Santos de Paz|title=Evolution of the big deals use in the public universities of the Castile and Leon region, Spain = Evolución del uso de los big deals en las universidades públicas de Castilla y León|url=https://buleria.unileon.es/handle/10612/11498|journal=El profesional de la información|date=2019|volume=28|issue=6|doi=10.3145/epi.2019.nov.19|first5=María Antonia|last5=Morán Suárez|first6=Josefa|last6=Gallego Lorenzo|first7=Isabel|last7=Olea Merino|language=es|doi-access=free|hdl=10612/11498|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Data analysis tools like Unpaywall Journals, used by libraries to calculate the real costs and value of their options before such decisions,<ref>{{cite web|access-date=2020-04-18|title=SUNY Negotiates New, Modified Agreement with Elsevier - Libraries News Center University at Buffalo Libraries|url=https://library.buffalo.edu/news/2020/04/07/suny-negotiates-new-modified-agreement-with-elsevier/|website=library.buffalo.edu|author=Denise Wolfe|publisher=University at Buffalo|date=2020-04-07}}</ref> allow to separate ResearchGate from open archives like institutional repositories, which are considered more stable.

==Criticism==

ResearchGate's decision to not remove convicted sex offenders from its social networking site has been criticized by Canadian authorities. Many researchers world-wide deleted their account in protest as they refused to remove convicted child pornographer and registered sex offender in Canada, Ben Levin as a user. Identified on ResearchGate as "Research Ben", he had been a frequent user of ResearchGate, publishing over 80 papers of interest with the vast majority dealing with studies around child pornography and pedophiles.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/depraved-world-view-of-ben-levin-continues-on-parole|title=MANDEL: Depraved world view of Ben Levin continues on parole &#124; Toronto Sun|date=November 16, 2017}}</ref>

ResearchGate has been criticized for emailing unsolicited invitations to the coauthors of its users.<ref name="nature140813" />{{rp|Q2}}<ref name="Swinburne">{{cite web|title=Beware of enemies masquerading as friends: ResearchGate and co.|url=http://blogs.swinburne.edu.au/library/entry/beware_of_enemies_disguised_as|url-status=dead|work=Swinburne Library Blog|publisher=Swinburne University of Technology |date=6 January 2014 |access-date=2014-04-10 |quote=ResearchGate automatically emails invitations to your coauthors on your behalf. These invitations are made to look as if they were sent by you but are emailed without your consent.}}</ref>{{New archival link needed|date=April 2026}} These emails were written as if they were personally sent by the user, but were instead sent automatically unless the user opted out,<ref name="nature140813" />{{rp|Q3}}<ref name="murray"/> which caused some researchers to boycott the service<ref name="nature140813">{{Cite journal|title=Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network|volume=512|issue=7513|pages=126–129|journal=Nature|date=13 August 2014|doi=10.1038/512126a|pmid=25119221|last1=Van Noorden|first1=Richard|bibcode=2014Natur.512..126V|doi-access=free}}<br />Quote 1: ResearchGate is certainly well-known [...] More than 88% of scientists and engineers said that they were aware of it.<br />Quote 2: "They do send you a lot of spam," Billie Swalla says<br />Quote 3: [...] regularly sending out automated e-mails that profess to come from colleagues active on the site<br /> Quote 4: "I think it is a disgraceful kind of marketing and I am choosing not to use their service because of that", [Lars Arvestad] says<br />Quote 5: "I've met basically no academics in my field with a favourable view of ResearchGate", says Daniel MacArthur<br />Quote 6: Some of the apparent profiles on the site are not owned by real people, but are created automatically – and incompletely – by scraping details of people's affiliations, publication records and PDFs<br />Quote 7: That annoys researchers who do not want to be on the site, and who feel that the pages misrepresent them – especially when they discover that ResearchGate will not take down the pages when asked.<br />Quote 8: [Madisch] will not say how many of [the papers available on ResearchGate] have been automatically scraped from freely accessible places elsewhere.</ref>{{rp|Q4}} and contributes to the negative view of ResearchGate in the scientific community.<ref name="nature140813"/>{{rp|Q5, Q7}} As of November 2016,<ref>ResearchGate, [https://explore.researchgate.net/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=951404&selectedPageVersions=9&selectedPageVersions=10 Page change] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161202210047/https://explore.researchgate.net/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=951404&selectedPageVersions=9&selectedPageVersions=10 |date=2016-12-02 }} for page "Inviting colleagues to ResearchGate". ''ResearchGate official website''. 10 November 2016. Retrieved 2017-10-08.</ref> the site appears to have discontinued this practice.<ref name="invite change">{{cite web |title=Inviting colleagues to ResearchGate |url=https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Inviting+colleagues+to+ResearchGate |website=ResearchGate |access-date=2016-12-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161203060649/https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/Inviting+colleagues+to+ResearchGate |archive-date=2016-12-03 |url-status=live }}</ref> The TechCrunch moderator Mike Butcher accused ResearchGate of having scraped competitors' websites for email addresses to spam, which the ResearchGate CEO denied.<ref name=":1" />

A study published by the Association for Information Systems in 2014 found that a dormant account on ResearchGate, using default settings, generated 297 invitations to 38 people over a 16-month period, and that the user profile was automatically attributed to more than 430 publications.<ref name="murray">{{cite conference | title=Analysis of a Scholarly Social Networking Site: The Case of the Dormant User | author=Meg Murray | year=2014 | conference=Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Southern Association for Information Systems (SAIS) | url=http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=sais2014 | access-date=2014-04-29 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140429205644/http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=sais2014 | archive-date=2014-04-29 | url-status=live }}</ref> Furthermore, journalists and researchers found that the RG score, calculated by ResearchGate via a proprietary algorithm,<ref name="murray" /> can reach high values under questionable circumstances.<ref name="murray" /><ref>{{cite web |title=Ein Vergleich für Forscher unter sich: Der Researchgate Score |url=http://www.scilogs.de/blogs/blog/quantensprung/2012-10-09/ein-vergleich-f-r-forscher-unter-sich-der-researchgate-score |date=9 October 2012 |access-date=2012-12-03 |language=de |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121028013610/http://www.scilogs.de/blogs/blog/quantensprung/2012-10-09/ein-vergleich-f-r-forscher-unter-sich-der-researchgate-score |archive-date=2012-10-28 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Several studies have looked at the RG score, for which details about how it is calculated are not published. These studies concluded that the RG score was "intransparent and irreproducible",<ref name="Kraker">Kraker, P., & Lex, E. A Critical Look at the ResearchGate Score as a Measure of Scientific Reputation. Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web (ASCW'15)</ref> criticized the way it incorporates the journal impact factor into the user score, and suggested that it should "not be considered in the evaluation of academics".<ref name="Kraker" /> The results were confirmed in a second "response" study, which also found the score to depend mostly on journal impact factors.<ref name="Jordan">{{cite conference|first=Katy|last=Jordan|title=Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric: Reflections and implications for practice|conference=Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web (ASCW'15)|year=2015}}</ref> The RG score was found to be negatively correlated with network centrality,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hoffmann|first1=C. P.|last2=Lutz|first2=C.|last3=Meckel|first3=M.|title=A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact|journal=Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology|date=2016|volume=67|issue=4|pages=765–775|doi=10.1002/asi.23423|s2cid=7769870|url=https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/240735/1/Hoffmann_Lutz_Meckel-2015-Journal_of_the_Association_for_Information_Science_and_Technology.pdf|archive-date=2017-09-21|access-date=2019-07-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170921203012/https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/240735/1/Hoffmann_Lutz_Meckel-2015-Journal_of_the_Association_for_Information_Science_and_Technology.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> i.e., that users that are the most active (and thus central to the network) on ResearchGate usually do not have high RG scores. It was also found to be strongly positively correlated with Quacquarelli Symonds university rankings at the institutional level, but only weakly with Elsevier SciVal rankings of individual authors.<ref name="CHB">{{cite journal|last1=Yu|first1=Min-Chun|title=ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers?|journal=Computers in Human Behavior|date=February 2016|volume=55|pages=1001–1006|doi=10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.007|s2cid=206620281 }}</ref> While it was found to be correlated with different university rankings, the correlation in between these rankings themselves was higher.<ref name="doi10.1002/asi.23236" /> ''Nature'' also reported that "Some of the apparent profiles on the site are not owned by real people, but are created automatically – and incompletely – by scraping details of people's affiliations, publication records and PDFs, if available, from around the web. That annoys researchers who do not want to be on the site, and who feel that the pages misrepresent them – especially when they discover that ResearchGate will not take down the pages when asked."<ref name="nature140813" />{{Rp|Q6, Q7}} ResearchGate uses a crawler to find PDF versions of articles on the homepages of authors and publishers.<ref name="nature140813" />{{rp|Q6}} These are then presented as if they had been uploaded to the web site by the author:<ref name="nature140813" />{{rp|Q7, Q8}} the PDF will be displayed embedded in a frame, and only the button label "External Download" indicates that the file was in fact not uploaded to ResearchGate.{{citation needed|date=June 2018}}

ResearchGate has been criticized for failing to provide safeguards against "the dark side of academic writing", including such phenomena as fake publishers, "ghost journals", publishers with "predatory" publication fees, and fake impact ratings.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Memon|first1=Aamir Raoof|title=ResearchGate is no longer reliable: leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community|journal=Journal of Pakistan Medical Association|date=December 2016|volume=66|issue=12|pages=1643–1647|pmid=27924967|url=http://www.jpma.org.pk/PdfDownload/8019.pdf|access-date=2016-12-02|quote=ResearchGate more recently, has been lenient in its policies against this dark side of academic writing.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161203124213/http://www.jpma.org.pk/PdfDownload/8019.pdf|archive-date=2016-12-03|url-status=live}}</ref> It has also been criticized for copyright infringement of published works.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2017/02/01/who-isnt-profiting-off-the-backs-of-researchers/|title=Who Isn't Profiting Off the Backs of Researchers?|date=2017-02-01|work=The Crux|access-date=2017-03-01|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170301181501/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2017/02/01/who-isnt-profiting-off-the-backs-of-researchers/|archive-date=2017-03-01|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Jamali|first=Hamid R.|date=16 February 2017 |title=Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles|journal=Scientometrics|volume=112|issue=1|language=en|pages=241–254|doi=10.1007/s11192-017-2291-4|s2cid=27138477|issn=0138-9130}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://fossilsandshit.com/illegal-file-hosting-site-researchgate-acquires-massive-financial-investment/|title=Illegal file hosting site, ResearchGate, acquires massive financial investment|date=1 March 2017|work=Green Tea and Velociraptors|access-date=2017-09-16|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170916225453/http://fossilsandshit.com/illegal-file-hosting-site-researchgate-acquires-massive-financial-investment/|archive-date=2017-09-16|url-status=live}}</ref>

In September 2017, lawyers representing the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM) sent a letter to ResearchGate threatening legal action against them for copyright infringement and demanding that they alter their handling of uploaded articles to include pre-release checking for copyright violations and "Specifically, [for ResearchGate to] end its extraction of content from hosted articles and the modification of any hosted content, including any and all metadata. It would also mean an end to Researchgate's own copying and downloading of published journal article content and the creation of internal databases of articles."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/509068/STM_letter_ResearchGate.20170916.pdf |title=RE: STM proposal – RG platform to become consistent with usage and access rights for article sharing |first=Carlo Scollo |last=Lavizzari |publisher=Lenz Caemmerer Attorneys and Notaries |date=15 September 2017 |via=Elsevier |access-date=2017-09-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170917173517/https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/509068/STM_letter_ResearchGate.20170916.pdf |archive-date=2017-09-17 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/publishers-go-after-networking-site-illicit-sharing-journal-papers |title=Publishers go after networking site for illicit sharing of journal papers |date=20 September 2017 |work=Science |publisher=AAAS |first=Dalmeet |last=Singh Chawla |access-date=2017-09-21 |language=en |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170920215407/http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/publishers-go-after-networking-site-illicit-sharing-journal-papers |archive-date=2017-09-20 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.elsevier.com/connect/stm-offers-researchgate-user-friendly-solutions-to-address-industry-concerns|title=Elsevier supports STM's constructive solution offered to ResearchGate on hosting research articles|first=David|last=Tucker|date=16 September 2017|work=Elsevier Connect|access-date=2017-09-17|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170917130259/https://www.elsevier.com/connect/stm-offers-researchgate-user-friendly-solutions-to-address-industry-concerns|archive-date=2017-09-17|url-status=live}}</ref> This was followed by an announcement that takedown requests are to be issued to ResearchGate for copyright infringement relating to millions of articles.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal-millions-papers-researchgate|title=Publishers seek removal of millions of papers from ResearchGate|date=5 October 2017|work=Times Higher Education|access-date=2017-10-05|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171005152411/https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/publishers-seek-removal-millions-papers-researchgate|archive-date=2017-10-05|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/10/06/researchgate-publishers-take-formal-steps-force-copyright-compliance/|title=ResearchGate: Publishers Take Formal Steps to Force Copyright Compliance|date=6 October 2017|work=The Scholarly Kitchen|access-date=2017-10-06|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171006211609/https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/10/06/researchgate-publishers-take-formal-steps-force-copyright-compliance/|archive-date=2017-10-06|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |url=https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i40/Publishers-take-legal-action-against.html |title=Publishers taking legal action against ResearchGate to limit unlicensed paper sharing on networking site |last2=Widener |first1=Jyllian |last1=Kemsley |first2=Andrea |website=Chemical & Engineering News |date=9 October 2017 |volume=95 |number=40 |access-date=6 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171006212232/https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i40/Publishers-take-legal-action-against.html |archive-date=2017-10-06 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Van Noorden|first=Richard|title=Publishers threaten to remove millions of papers from ResearchGate|url=https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-threaten-to-remove-millions-of-papers-from-researchgate-1.22793|journal=Nature|language=en|doi=10.1038/nature.2017.22793|year=2017|access-date=2017-10-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171010231304/http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-threaten-to-remove-millions-of-papers-from-researchgate-1.22793|archive-date=2017-10-10|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://lisahinchliffe.com/2017/10/10/i-have-a-lot-of-questions-rg-els-sn-stm-and-crs/|title=I Have a Lot of Questions: RG, ELS, SN, STM, and CRS|date=2017-10-10|work=Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe|access-date=2017-10-10|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171010041147/https://lisahinchliffe.com/2017/10/10/i-have-a-lot-of-questions-rg-els-sn-stm-and-crs/|archive-date=2017-10-10|url-status=live}}</ref> A statement supporting the action was issued by a group called Coalition for Responsible Sharing, and the statement was signed by the American Chemical Society, Brill Publishers, Elsevier, Wiley, and Wolters Kluwer.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.responsiblesharing.org/coalition-statement/|title=Coalition Statement|website=Coalition for Responsible Sharing|language=en-US|date=5 October 2017|access-date=2017-10-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171007021615/http://www.responsiblesharing.org/coalition-statement/|archive-date=2017-10-07|url-status=live}}</ref> Subsequently, Coalition for Responsible Sharing (CfRS) reported that "ResearchGate has removed from public view a significant number of copyrighted articles it is hosting on its site".<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.responsiblesharing.org/2017-10-10-researchgate-removed-articles/|title=ResearchGate Removed Significant Number of Copyrighted Articles|work=Coalition for Responsible Sharing|access-date=2017-10-10|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171011071930/http://www.responsiblesharing.org/2017-10-10-researchgate-removed-articles/|archive-date=2017-10-11|url-status=live}}</ref> CfRS also confirmed that "not all violations have been addressed" and as such, takedown notices have been issued.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.responsiblesharing.org/2017-10-18-coalition-for-responsible-sharing-issues-take-down-notices-to-researchgate-to-address-remaining-violations/|title=Coalition for Responsible Sharing issues take down notices to ResearchGate to address remaining violations — Coalition for Responsible Sharing|work=Coalition for Responsible Sharing|access-date=2017-10-18|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018172200/http://www.responsiblesharing.org/2017-10-18-coalition-for-responsible-sharing-issues-take-down-notices-to-researchgate-to-address-remaining-violations/|archive-date=2017-10-18|url-status=live}}</ref>

ResearchGate has managed to achieve an agreement on article uploading with three other major publishers, Springer Nature, Cambridge University Press and Thieme. Under the agreement, the publishers will be notified when their articles are uploaded but will not be able to premoderate uploads.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Trager |first1=Rebecca |title=ResearchGate reaches deal with science publishers |url=https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/researchgate-reaches-deal-with-science-publishers/3008943.article |website=Chemistry World |access-date=29 October 2018 |date=25 April 2018}}</ref>

== References == {{Reflist}}

==External links== {{Commons category|Researchgate}} {{Wikidata property|P2038|P2740}} * {{Official website}} * ''[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7978121/american-chemical-society-v-researchgate-gmbh/ ACS v. ResearchGate GmbH]'' court case docket

{{Online social networking}} {{Portal bar|Books|Education}}

Category:Companies based in Berlin Category:Internet properties established in 2008 Category:Online companies of Germany Category:Professional networks Category:Scholarly communication Category:Science websites Category:Social networking services