Introduction

The diffusion of research results is no longer restricted to the traditional academic community. More and more researchers are sharing their publications on social networks such as Twitter or Facebook in an attempt to gain more readers, citations and social impact¹.

Along with these more generalist social networks, the so-called social research networks have emerged, such as ResearchGate, Academia.edu or Google Scholar citations. Their main objective is to provide connection among scientists to share updated information, exchange opinions and access resources of interest instantly and easily^2-4. A study showed that researchers also use these social research networks to share their academic profiles⁵, although online platforms specifically designed for this purpose are more appropriate.

These academic profile platforms are online tools that allow identifying a researcher and linking them with their scientific production, enhancing their research results' visibility. In other words, these tools make a researcher's scientific history known in a grouped, systematic and updated way. They primarily consist of a website with different direct Internet access for each researcher, where their main data of current affiliation, their professional career and their academic merits are submitted, usually highlighting articles of scientific journals, which can be sorted by dates, themes, etcetera. Some of these platforms allow obtaining bibliometric indicators from the author.

It is thought that having a profile on these platforms enhances the value of the researchers' scientific production, as well as achieves an increase in citations⁶. Additionally, these platforms are used both for the evaluation and accreditation of professors and researchers in their work environment, as well as for the identification and evaluation of authors, reviewers and editors of scientific journals⁷.

Some of these academic profiles platforms arise from the large databases of scientific articles, which have adjusted their online tools to periodically provide updated information on researchers and authors, linking these profiles to all their information. For instance, Publons is a tool associated with Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus author ID is associated with Scopus.

The content's accuracy, transparency and integrity on such platforms are the characteristics that should be sought when deciding which ones to use, as well as considering the scientific prestige of its founders and moderators⁸. These tools have great potential in terms of visibility, but they can also be problematic if they serve for the diffusion of merits achieved in a more or less fraudulent way. Another potential problem stems from the fact that some of these platforms may be infringing the journals' copyright, leading to conflicts between the author, the editorial committee, the publishing house and the online platform when articles not published under Open Access formats are disseminated.

The objective of this study is to analyze and compare the main systems for the creation of research profiles, such as online platforms or social research networks.

General characteristics of online platformsand social networks for the creation of research profiles

The most relevant characteristics are shown in Tables 1 and Table 2, respectively, while its main bibliometric indicators are shown in Table 3.

Table 1. Main online platforms for the creation of research profiles^9-12  

^aThe platform is able to associate the author with their institutional or professional affiliation.

^bThe platform groups different ways of naming the author in the same profile.

^cPossibility of displaying an image of the author.

^dLanguages in which the platform is presented.

^ePossibility of making the profile public, private or visible to certain people.

^fOpportunity to associate the profile with the co-author(s) of the scientific papers they have published jointly.

^gCombination with another online tool to be able to transfer all data from one platform to another.

^hOpportunity to include scientific papers published in scientific journals.

ⁱPossibility of showing doctoral theses.

Table 2. Social research networks^13-15  

^aThe platform is able to associate the author with their institutional or professional affiliation.

^bThe platform groups different ways of naming the author in the same profile.

^cPossibility of displaying an image of the author.

^dLanguages in which the platform is presented.

^ePossibility of making the profile public, private or visible to certain people.

^fOpportunity to associate the profile with the co-author(s) of the scientific papers they have published jointly.

^gCombination with another online tool to be able to transfer all data from one platform to another.

^hOpportunity to include scientific papers published in scientific journals.

ⁱPossibility of showing doctoral theses.

Table 3. Main bibliometric indexes of some of the existing platforms for researcher profiles 

^* Index h is short for Hirsch index, which is a metric citation benchmark used to measure the impact of an author or journal's publication. It is defined as (h) value when either the journal or the researcher have been cited at least n times. That is, if the index is worth n, then n publications have been cited more than n times¹⁶.

^** Index i10 implies the number of publications with at least 10 citations. This measure is very simple and has the advantage that it is very easy to calculate, and Google Scholar citations are free and easy to use. A clear disadvantage to this approach is that this index is only used in this platform¹⁷.

^*** PlumX Metrics is a tool to measure the impact of repositories and online platforms. It elaborates the metrics of the different versions of the same article, so that its authors can see the impact and scope of their research in one place. It also analyzes the impact and statistics of our research profile based on five categories: citations, use, captures,mentions and social networks¹⁸.

^**** Altmetrics tools are altimetric markers that quantify the digital attention that an article receives in an “online” crowd, that is, the influence in real time of an article in social networks, Wikipedia, blogs, news and media, all tracked and reviewed by the Altmetric database. This process allows measuring the attention that an individual article receives from the moment the article is published¹⁹.

Online research profile platforms

Scopus author ID is presented as the oldest online platform, while ORCID­ is the most implanted in the academic world, and Publons as the one with the greatest dynamism and current growth. All platforms are experiencing a continuous growth in the number of users, as researchers are increasingly aware of making a more visible scientific production of their own. All belong to commercial companies, with the exception of ORCID that defines itself as a “non-profit organization”.

All four online platforms have an unequivocal website per researcher and an identification number (except Kudos). Also all (except Kudos) offer the possibility of having a list of the researcher's variant names. This is an advantage in countries such as Spain, where compound names are common and have two last names. All offer the possibility of associating the research profile with the different co-authors of the published works.

Regarding the type of merits that can be recorded, all platforms are focused on the journal articles, which, after all, is the main result to be disseminated in a research profile. ORCID includes doctoral thesis and Scopus author ID, Publons and ORCID provide the option of a keywords list, which is a point to bear in mind, since these words can be linked to the author's own research lines. The novelty of Publons is the possibility of providing a peer review work of a verified researcher as a curricular merit in connection with the scientific journals. The selection of included merits, as well as the greater capacity to verify their authenticity and quality is the main difference between online research profile platforms and social research networks.

All online platforms have different bibliometric indicators, with the exception of ORCID (Table 3). These indicators are quantitative and qualitative tools that allow us, in theory, to know the importance of a written scientific production, by either an author, a group or an institution^20,21.

As shown in Table 1, all tools are compatible with at least one other different online platform, and even with some social research networks. This fact could solve the problem detected in a study regarding inconsistencies found in the available information on the different platforms for the same researcher, for instance, a different number of citations²².

Social research networks

Regarding social research networks, ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Google Scholar citations have been included in this work, the latter is added into this block by some authors^8,38,39.

The use of social networks has increased rapidly over the past few years. Even though its average acceptance among academics has been slower than by the general population³⁶, more and more academics and researchers have begun to see its usefulness, and even some anticipate that it may eventually influence promotion processes in academic institutions⁴⁰.

Social networks are perceived as effective tools for the discovery and diffusion of research findings⁴¹. All social networks present similarities, such as sharing manuscripts, presentations, posters and other forms of general communication to science³⁷.

Displaying each user's associated affiliation, incorporating articles from journals in their profiles and including a list of keywords based on the research line are the common characteristics of these three social research networks. None of the social research networks assign an identifier to each profile. This entails a limitation regarding platforms that do have it incorporated, since authors with similar names and/or surnames can be found, resulting in causing confusion on certain occasions.

As presented in Table 2, these social research networks have a greater number of users as opposed to research profile platforms. For instance, in an analysis of 4,307 Norwegian researchers, profiles revealed that the former ResearcherID platform was the least popular, with only 130 user holders (3%) compared to 1,307 researchers in ResearchGate (30%), which makes it the most popular³⁸. Another study based on an email survey disseminated by Nature⁵ journal reported that ResearchGate (48%) was the most used profiling tool compared to ResearcherID (12%) and Academia.edu (5%).

In ResearchGate, at least one publication is required to create a profile. In addition, Academia.edu is the only one that has the characteristic of name variants.

Google Scholar citations is the most cosmopolitan social research network, since it is presented in almost all languages. It is also the only social research network that offers the option of making it public or private, and the only one that shows the possibility of including doctoral theses.

In connection to bibliometric tools, social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn allow researchers to promote their work. However, the results are measured in terms of social media metrics -such as views, actions, likes, etc.-, and not in terms of publication metrics -such as downloads, citations or bibliometric indexes-.

Some networks, such as ResearchGate, offer the opportunity for authors to upload all their works in pdf format, regardless of the copyright they receive (in case the author has not uploaded a certain article, it can be requested through a private request). This has generated a variety of opinions. Some authors have positively valued this option because it contributes to the more transversal diffusion of research. Others, as previously mentioned, pay attention to the legal and moral conflict that arises between the author and the editor, as there is no mechanism defined to prevent this problem and there are no well-defined sanctions in case of the editor's copyright infringement.