ResearchGate分数是否会造成学术声誉的幽灵？
Do ResearchGate Scores create ghost academic reputations?
摘要：
学术社交网站ResearchGate（RG）对其成员有自己的指标RG Score。该网站的高调性质意味着RG分数可用于招聘，晋升和其他任务，其中研究人员进行评估。作为回应，本研究调查是否是合理的雇用RG分数作为学术声誉的证据。为此，研究了三个不同的作者样本。一个离群样本包括104位具有高价值的作者。诺贝尔奖的样本包括医学与生理学、化学、物理学和经济学（1975年至2015年）的73位诺贝尔奖得主。纵向样本包括具有不同RG评分的4位作者的每周数据。结果表明，高RG分数主要来自与在网站中提问和回答问题相关的活动。特别是，似乎不可能仅仅通过出版物获得高RG分数。在RG中，可以区分在网站中互动很少的（被动）学者和主动平台用户，后者可以通过与网站内的其他人（问题，答案，与有影响力的研究人员的社交网络）进行互动来获得高RG分数。因此，RG分数不应被误认为是学术声誉指标。
英文摘要：
The academic social network site ResearchGate (RG) has its own indicator, RG Score, for its members. The high profile nature of the site means that the RG score may be used for recruitment, promotion and other tasks for which researchers are evaluated. In response, this study investigates whether it is reasonable to employ the RG Score as evidence of scholarly reputation. For this, three different author samples were investigated. An outlier sample includes 104 authors with high values. A Nobel sample comprises 73 Nobel winners from Medicine & Physiology, Chemistry, Physics and Economics (from 1975 to 2015). A longitudinal sample includes weekly data on 4 authors with different RG Scores. The results suggest that high RG Scores are built primarily from activity related to asking and answering questions in the site. In particular, it seems impossible to get a high RG Score solely through publications. Within RG it is possible to distinguish between (passive) academics that interact little in the site and active platform users, who can get high RG Scores through engaging with others inside the site (questions, answers, social networks with influential researchers). Thus, RG Scores should not be mistaken for academic reputation indicators.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
