Use of Research Organizations Registry (ROR) identifiers in author academic profilesthe case of Google Scholar Profiles

  1. Orduña-Malea, Enrique 1
  2. Bautista-Puig, Núria 2
  1. 1 Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
    info

    Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01460j859

  2. 2 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Journal:
Hipertext.net: Revista Académica sobre Documentación Digital y Comunicación Interactiva

ISSN: 1695-5498

Year of publication: 2022

Issue Title: Interfaces: networks, ecology and evolution

Issue: 25

Type: Article

DOI: 10.31009/HIPERTEXT.NET.2022.I25.11 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Hipertext.net: Revista Académica sobre Documentación Digital y Comunicación Interactiva

Abstract

Research organizations' persistent identifiers allow for reducing affiliation ambiguities, enable accurate institutional analyses and favor the design of modern online scholarly databases suited for research discovery and research evaluation. However, few studies have attempted to quantify their degree of use. Precisely, the purpose of this work is to determine the use of Research Organizations Registry (ROR) IDs in author academic profiles, specifically in Google Scholar Profiles (GSP). To do this, all the Google Scholar profiles including the term ROR in any of the public descriptive fields were collected and analyzed. The results evidence a low use of ROR IDs (1,033 profiles), mainly from a few institutions (e.g. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Colombia, and Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral in Ecuador hold 55.7% of all profiles), from low citation-based impact authors (45.1% of profiles attain less than 100 citations each), belonging mainly to Social Sciences (26.3%), Engineering fields (25.3%), and Natural Sciences (22.2%). Although Google Scholar does not facilitate the inclusion of identifiers, it seems that the world's leading research institutions are not recommending their researchers include these identifiers in their profiles yet.

Bibliographic References

  • Delgado López-Cózar, E., Orduña-Malea, E. & Martín-Martín, A. (2019). Google Scholar as a Data Source for Research Assessment. In W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 95-127). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_4
  • Delgado López-Cózar, E., Robinson-García, N. & Torres-Salinas, D. (2014). The Google scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 446-454. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23056
  • Demeranville, T., Brown, J., Fenner, M., Cruse, P., Haak, L., Paglione, L., Bilder, G., Lin, J. & Pentz (Eds). (2016). Organisation Identifiers - Minimum viable product requirements. https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3479141.v1
  • Doğan, G., Şencan, İ. & Tonta, Y. (2016). Does Dirty Data Affect Google Scholar Citations? Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 53(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2016.14505301098
  • Jacsó, P. (2012). Google Scholar Author Citation Tracker: Is it too little, too late? Online Information Review, 36(1), 126-141. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521211209581
  • Kim, H. J. & Grofman, B. (2020). Who Creates a Google Scholar Profile? PS: Political Science & Politics, 53(3), 515-520. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520000189
  • Lammey, R. (2020). Solutions for identification problems: A look at the Research Organization Registry. Science Editing, 7(1), 65-69. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.192
  • Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E. & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). A novel method for depicting academic disciplines through Google Scholar Citations: The case of Bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 114(3), 1251-1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2587-4
  • Meadows, A. (4 December 2019). Are You Ready to ROR? An Inside Look at this New Organization Identifier Registry. The Scholarly kitchen [blog]. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2019/12/04/are-you-ready-to-ror-an-inside-look-at-this-new-organization-identifier-registry
  • Mikki, S., Zygmuntowska, M., Gjesdal, Ø. L. & Al Ruwehy, H. A. (2015). Digital Presence of Norwegian Scholars on Academic Network Sites—Where and Who Are They? PLOS ONE, 10(11), e0142709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142709
  • Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Martín-Martín, A. & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2017). The lost academic home: Institutional affiliation links in Google Scholar Citations. Online Information Review, 41(6), 762-781. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-10-2016-0302
  • Orduña-Malea, E., & Bautista-Puig, N. (2022). Measuring web connectivity between research organizations through ROR identifiers. 26th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2022), Granada, Spain. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6948453
  • Ortega, J. L., & Aguillo, I. F. (2013). Institutional and country collaboration in an online service of scientific profiles: Google Scholar Citations. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 394-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.007
  • Ortega, J. L. (2015a). Diferencias y evolución del impacto académico en los perfiles de Google Scholar Citations: Una aplicación de árboles de decisión. Revista española de Documentación Científica, 38(4), e102. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2015.4.1225
  • Ortega, J. L. (2015b). How is an academic social site populated? A demographic study of Google Scholar Citations population. Scientometrics, 104(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1593-7
  • Ortega, J. L. (2015c). Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC’s members. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.004
  • Ortega, J. L. & Aguillo, I. F. (2012). Science is all in the eye of the beholder: Keyword maps in Google scholar citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2370-2377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22761
  • Ortega, J. L. & Aguillo, I. F. (2013). Institutional and country collaboration in an online service of scientific profiles: Google Scholar Citations. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 394-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.12.007
  • Ortega, J. L. & Aguillo, I. F. (2014). Microsoft academic search and Google scholar citations: Comparative analysis of author profiles: Microsoft Academic Search and Google Scholar Citations: Comparative Analysis of Author Profiles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(6), 1149-1156. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23036
  • Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2018). The Google Scholar h-index: Useful but burdensome metric. Scientometrics, 117(1), 631-635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2859-7
  • Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021). The i100-index, i1000-index and i10,000-index: Expansion and fortification of the Google Scholar h-index for finer-scale citation descriptions and researcher classification. Scientometrics, 126(4), 3667-3672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03831-9
  • Thoma, B. & Chan, T. M. (2019). Using Google Scholar to track the scholarly output of research groups. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(3), 201-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0515-4
  • Tsou, A., Bowman, T. D., Sugimoto, T., Lariviere, V. & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Self-presentation in scholarly profiles: Characteristics of images and perceptions of professionalism and attractiveness on academic social networking sites. First Monday, 21(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i4.6381
Data source: Dialnet