Kysliuk Kostiantyn

Features of the functioning of the altmetric methodology Research Interest Score (using the example of the profiles of professors of National Aerospace University "Kharkiv Aviation Institute")

Section: Libraries in the digital environment

Abstract: The purpose of the article is to clarify the peculiarities of the functioning of the altmetric methodology Research Interest Score from the world’s most popular academic social network ResearchGate.net in library and information science. Research methodology. Using statistical calculations and the citation analysis method it had been compared the scientometric indicators from an arbitrary stratified sample of profiles of professors of the National Aerospace University "Kharkiv Aviation Institute" in ResearchGate and Google Scholar. Scientific novelty. For the first time, the profiles with three different levels of altmetric indicators were simultaneously studied (RI Score > 1000; RI Score = 100–1000; RI Score, <100). For professors individually, for groups with different levels of RI Score and the sample as a whole, a statistical calculation of the coincidence coefficient of citation indices (Kh) was carried out. The index coincidence coefficient was the percentage of the RG citation index to the GS citation index (typically, the Hirsch index). Specific citations to five publications in the upper part of the scientist profiles, generated by RG and GS, respectively, were compared. The citation coincidence coefficient (Kc) was established as the percentage of the sum of common citations in GS and RG to the largest number – the sum of citations of scientific works in the sample found by GS algorithms. Conclusions. The analysis showed the presence of a moderate correlation between the classical and alternative metrics. In particular, the final arithmetic mean coincidence coefficient of citation indices from RG and GS was 66.1%. However, with an increase in the level of bibliometric indicators, this connection became increasingly stronger and for the group of professors with high bibliometric indicators (RI Score > 1000) was already 81.9%. The citation coincidence coefficient, which had an average value of 51.7% and was approximately the same for all groups with different altmetric markers, proved the real alternativeness of the GS and RG search algorithms. The possibility of manipulating altmetrics by artificially increasing the number of recommendations is confirmed. Their main advantage is emphasized – demonstrating the knowing of scientific work through a significant impact on their value of the number of views and full readings of the texts of publications.

Keywords: almetrics, library and information science, bibliometric analysis, National Aerospace University "Kharkiv Aviation Institute" (NAU "KhAI"), ResearcheGate, Research Interest Score.

  Full-text PDF    https://doi.org/10.15407/bv2025.03.043     Citation

• Kysliuk Kostiantyn (National Aerospace University "Kharkiv Aviation Institute" (Kharkiv, Ukraine), [email protected]) ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9092-6808

Cite:
Kysliuk Kostiantyn (2025). Features of the functioning of the altmetric methodology Research Interest Score (using the example of the profiles of professors of National Aerospace University "Kharkiv Aviation Institute"). Bibliotechnyi visnyk, (3) 43-54. (In Ukrainan). doi: https://doi.org/10.15407/bv2025.03.043

References:

1. Nazarovets, S. (2016). Perspektyvy vykorystannia servisiv altmetriks v universytetskykh bibliotekakh Ukrainy [Prospects for using altmetrics services in university libraries of Ukraine]. Visnyk Knyzhkovoi palaty, 6, 15-18. [In Ukrainian].
2. Spirin, O. M., and Oleksiuk, V. P., Ivanova, S. M., Novytska, T. L. (2023). Kryterii ta pokaznyky otsiniuvannia rezultatyvnosti kolektyvnykh pedahohichnykh doslidzhen [Criteria and indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of collective pedagogical research]. Informatsiini tekhnolohii i zasoby navchannia, 98 (6), 190-211. [In Ukrainian]. doi: https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v98i6.5471
3. Wikipedia. (n.d.). Altmetrics. Retrieved May 2, 2025. [In English].
4. Arroyo-Machado, W., and Herrera-Viedma, E., Torres-Salinas, D. (2025). The botization of science? Large-scale study of the presence and impact of Twitter bots in science dissemination. Journal of The Association For Information Science and Technology, 76. [In English]. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24998
5. ResearchGate Help Center. (n.d.). Citations. May 5, 2025 [In English].
6. Kirilova, S., and Zoepfl, F. (2025). Metrics fraud on ResearchGate. Journal of Informetrics, 19 (1), 101604. [In English]. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2024.101604
7. Knudson, D. (2023). Association of ResearchGate research influence score with other metrics of top cited sports biomechanics scholars. Biomedical Human Kinetics, 15, 57-62. [In English]. doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/bhk-2023-0008
8. Kraker, P., and Jordan, K., Lex, E. (2015). The ResearchGate Score: a good example of a bad metric. LSE Impact Blog. [In English].
9. Memisevic, Hs. (2022). Research Interest Score in ResearchGate: The silver bullet of scientometrics or the emperor’s new clothes? Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics, 3 (3), 187-191. [In English]. doi: https://doi.org/10.47316/cajmhe.2022.3.3.05
10. ResearchGate. (n.d.). Press. News and announcements from ResearchGate, along with helpful resources, publications, and branding information. Retrieved May 5, 2025 [In English].
11. ResearchGate Help Center. (n.d.). Research Interest Score. Retrieved May 6, 2025 [In English].
12. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2025). The Now-Defunct ResearchGate Score and the Extant Research Interest Score: A Continued Debate on Metrics of a Highly Popular Academic Social Networking Site. Open Information Science, 9 (1), 20240011. [In English]. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/opis2024-0011
13. Wiechetek, Ł., and Pastuszak, Z. (2022). Academic social networks metrics: An effective indicator for university performance? Scientometrics, 127 (3), 1381-1401. [In English]. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04258-6