Special Collaboration: Metrics in Academic Profiles: A New Addictive Game For Researchers?

Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2016 Sep 22;90:e1-5. www.msc.
es/resp
Receipt: 2016 Sep 21

SPECIAL COLLABORATION Accepted: 2016 Sep 21
ePublished: 2016 Sep 22
Metrics in academic profiles: a new addictive game for researchers?
Enrique Orduna-Malea (1), Alberto Martín-Martín (2) and Emilio Delgado López-Cózar (2).
(1) Universitat Politècnica de València. Valencia. España.
(2) Universidad de Granada. Granada. España.
Los autores declaran que no existe conflicto de intereses
ABSTRACT RESUMEN
This study aims to promote reflection and bring attention to the poten-
tial adverse effects of academic social networks on science. These academic Métricas en perfiles académicos:
social networks, where authors can display their publications, have become
new scientific communication channels, accelerating the dissemination of
¿un nuevo juego adictivo para los investigadores?
research results, facilitating data sharing, and strongly promoting scientific Pretende este trabajo provocar la reflexión y alertar de los posibles peli-
collaboration, all at no cost to the user. gros para la ciencia que encierran las nuevas redes sociales académicas que
tanto éxito están teniendo en nuestros días. Las redes sociales académicas
One of the features that make them extremely attractive to researchers is
donde los autores pueden mostrar sus publicaciones se han convertido en
the possibility to browse through a wide variety of bibliometric indicators.
nuevos canales de comunicación científica, pues agilizan la diseminación de
Going beyond publication and citation counts, they also measure usage, par-
los resultados de investigación, facilitan la compartición de datos y fomentan
ticipation in the platform, social connectivity, and scientific, academic and
la colaboración científica de forma extensa sin coste alguno.
professional impact. Using these indicators they effectively create a digital
image of researchers and their reputations. Una de las novedades principales de estas plataformas, que es lo que las
hace enormemente atractivas para los investigadores, consiste en la disponi-
However, although academic social platforms are useful applications
bilidad de una amplia batería de indicadores bibliométricos que van más allá
that can help improve scientific communication, they also hide a less positi-
del conteo de publicaciones y citas pues permiten medir el uso, la participa-
ve side: they are highly addictive tools that might be abused. By gamifying
ción, la conectividad social y el impacto científico, académico y profesional.
scientific impact using techniques originally developed for videogames, the-
Sobre estos indicadores se está construyendo la propia imagen y reputación
se platforms may get users hooked on them, like addicted academics, trans-
digital de los científicos.
forming what should only be a means into an end in itself.
Pues bien, todos estos beneficios de las redes sociales académicas en la
Keywords: Bibliometrics, Academic Profiles, Addiction, Gamification, mejora de la comunicación científica esconden un lado no tan positivo para
Social networks, Video games, Adverse effects. Research. ethics, research la ciencia. Se trata de herramientas muy peligrosas, que pueden convertirse
Behavior, addictive, en auténticas adicciones. Mediante la gamificación del impacto científico a
través de persuasivas técnicas procedentes de los videojuegos, estas platafor-
mas pueden hacer que los usuarios queden enganchados, como académicos
adictos, convirtiendo lo que es un medio en un fin en sí mismo.
Palabras clave: Bibliometría, Perfiles académicos, Gamificación, Re-

des sociales, Videojuegos, Efectos adversos, Ética de la investigación, Com-
portamiento adictivo
Correspondence
Emilio Delgado López-Cózar
Universidad de Granada
Campus Cartuja s/n
18071 Granada Suggested citation: Orduna-Malea E, Martín-Martín A, Delgado López-Có-
Spain zar E. Metrics in academic profiles: a new addictive game for researchers?
[email protected] Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2016 Sep 22;90:e1-5.
Enrique Orduna-Malea et al.
ACADEMIC PROFILES: Table 1

NEW COMMUNICATION CHANNELS Multidisciplinary academic platforms:
IN SCIENCE documents and profiles
Academic profile
The number of researchers who use aca- Documents Profiles
Platforms
demic profiles and social networks is rapid- Google Scholar 200,000,000 1,500,000
ly increasing.(1,2) Since the launch of Aminer ResearchGate 100,000,000 10,000,000
in 2006, a pioneer academic profile service, Microsoft Academic
many other actors have released their own Search
80,000,000 Deprecated
platform, among others: ResearcherID, Re- Mendeley 114,000,000 4,000,000
searchGate, and Academia.edu in 2008, Mi-
Academia.edu 14,983,516 41,531,184
crosoft Academic Search’s Profiles in 2009,
All approximate data as of September 2016; data were obtained
ImpactStory in 2011, Google Scholar Cita- directly from the official information published by the plat-
tions, and ORCID in 2012, the new Scopus forms, with the exception of Google Scholar, whose documents
Author Profiles in 2014, and recently, the pro- and profiles were estimated through year queries and direct
scraping respectively.
files available in Semantic Scholar, a promis-
ing new academic search engine developed by
the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence Most academic profile services and social
and launched on November 2015. These plat- networks offer a wide battery of author-level
forms have already started shaping science metrics (figure 2), which they usually show-
communication, and they may very well also case prominently on their interfaces. These
influence future academic impact assessment. may be divided into five categories: biblio-
Their current number of users (table 1) bears metrics (publication and citation), usage, par-
witness to their widespread acceptance among ticipation, rating, and social connectivity.(3) All
the global community of researchers. user interactions (views, downloads, reads,
links, shares, mentions, reviews, embeds,
Each of these platforms, while providing labels, discussions, bookmarks, votes, fol-
the common synchronous and asynchronous lows, ratings, citations, etc.) are tracked by
social network features, also specializes to fit the platform and transformed into a variety of
their users’ interests. One of the most com- indicators, from which researchers can get an
mon features in academic social networks is idea of the impact their work is having in the
enabling users to upload and share their aca- scientific and professional communities, and
demic contributions, whether or not they have the media at large, nearly on real time. The
been formally published and regardless of impact reflected, of course, depends on the
their typology and source. Additionally, they degree to which users engage in the platform,
also make a handful of social tools available and the variety of metrics available. Authors
to their users (figure 1), such as personalized may have a different reflection in each of the
alerts, open peer reviews, social networking platforms.Thus, each platform may be con-
through contacts, the possibility to make and sidered an “academic mirror”.
answer academic-related questions, public
and private messages, and last but not least, Policy makers, in their eagerness to find
access to a comprehensive monitoring and objective quantitative measures that relieve
technological surveillance system. In short, them of the responsibility of their decisions,
these platforms are a new way to commu- may be tempted to use and endorse these met-
nicate academic activities. They also speed rics.(4) We already know how sensitive scien-
up the dissemination of results, facilitate tists are to evaluative policies inasmuch they
research data sharing, and encourage wide- affect the promotion and reward systems,
spread scientific collaboration, all at no cost essential cogwheels in the clockwork of Sci-
to the user (so far). ence.(5) The consecration of bibliometric in-
2 Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2016 Sep 22;90:e1-5.

Figure 1
New communication features in the new academic platforms
(example of some ResearchGate features)
dexes, with the Journal Impact Factor at the Impact Factor. Other metric-based drugs such
head, as the preferred criteria in the evalua- as the h-index and all its derivatives came
tion of scientists in Spain since 1989 consti- later, and now a new generation of synthetic
tutes a good case in point regarding behav- and designer drugs has sprung from academic
ioural changes induced by these policies.(5,6) social networks. These new narcotics, as their
predecessors, thrive on satisfying their users’
The compulsive obsession to use the Jour- egotistical needs by continuously activating
nal Impact Factor as a unique and indisputa- their internal reward mechanisms, like any
ble measure of the quality of a scientific work other addictive drug would do. However, the
quickly spread throughout many countries, substance has evolved from one metric to an
giving rise to a new real disease: impacti- entire entertaining and immersive environ-
tis(7), which recently led both to a declaration ment, similar to a videogame.
against its use (DORA: San Francisco Decla-
ration on Research Assessment)(8) and a Man- By gamifying researchers’ impact through
ifesto(9) declaring best practices for the fair persuasive videogame techniques (scores,
use of bibliometric indicators. achievements, competition, unlocked fea-
tures, and coming soon stages, enemies and
THE NEW “BIBLIOMETRIC DRUGS” extra lives), these platforms intend to get us-
ers hooked on scoring reputation “points”,
Although these “mirrors” come loaded with competing against one another and against
metrics for nearly everything, they might also themselves.(10)
bring about negative effects. They are highly
addictive tools that might be abused as if they Addict scholars will not only be more will-
were drugs. ing to game the system(11), but will also find
themselves in such a state of dependence and
The first recognizable “bibliometric drug”
self-absorption that their creativity and pro-
-as we understand it today- was the Journal
ductivity (professional dimension), and so-
Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2016 Sep 22;90:e1-5. 3

Enrique Orduna-Malea et al.
Figure 2
Author metric display in the most important academic profiles
(Mendeley, ResearchGate, ResearcherID, and Google Scholar Citations)
cial relations (personal dimension) might be BIBLIOGRAFÍA

severely affected. Users may even experience
1. Van-Noorden R. Online collaboration: Scientists and
episodes of depression if they feel their met- the social network. Nature.2015;512(7513):126-9.
rics are not as good as expected, or when a
rival surpasses them or achieve a particularly 2. Kramer B, Bosman J. 101 Innovations in Scholarly
high score. Communication: the Changing Research Workflow
[online]. (Consulted 11-09-2016). Available at:
The appearance of a new mental disorder https://101innovations.wordpress.com
(similar as those detected on young people 3. Orduna-Malea E, Martín-Martín A, Delgado López-
hooked on social networks) should not be dis- Cózar E. The next bibliometrics: ALMetrics (Author Le-
carded. Researchers compulsively accessing vel Metrics) and the multiple faces of author impact. El
to academic social platforms anytime and an- profesional de la información.2016;25(3):485-96.
ywhere, expecting new downloads, citations 4. Jiménez-Contreras E, Moya Anegón F, Delgado
or likes is a clear symptom that a new aca- López-Cózar E. The evolution of research activity in
demic illness is born, a scholar-ache. Spain: The impact of the National Commission for the
Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI). Res Policy.
Faced with this scenario should we warn or 2003;32(1):123-42.
prevent scientists against the (ab)use of these 5. Jiménez-Contreras E, Delgado López-Cózar E, Ruiz-
platforms? Should research institutions learn Pérez, R, Fernández VM. Impact-factor rewards affect
how to treat this new social disease? Spanish research. Nature. 2002; 417(6892):898.
4 Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2016 Sep 22;90:e1-5.

6. Delgado-Lopez-Cozar E, Ruiz-Pérez R, Jiménez-

Contreras E. Impact of the impact factor in Spain. BMJ
2007; 334.
7. Camí, J. Impactolatria, diagnóstico y tratamiento.

Med Clín (Barc).1997; 109: 515-24.
8. American Society for Cell Biology. San Francisco

declaration on research assessment [online]. (Consulted
15-09-2016). Disponible en: http://am.ascb.org/dora/
9. Hicks, D, Wouters, P, Waltman, L, Rijcke, SD, Rafols,

I. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research me-
trics. Nature. 2015;520:429-31.
10. Hammarfelt B, de Rijcke SD, Rushforth AD. Quan-

tified academic selves: the gamification of research
through social networking services. Information Re-
search.2016;21(2). (Consulted 11-09-2016). Disponible
en: http://InformationR.net/ir/21-2/SM1.html
11. Delgado López-Cózar E, Robinson-García N, Torres-

Salinas D. The Google Scholar experiment: How to in-
dex false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators.
J Assoc Information Sci Technol.2014;65(3):446-54.
Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2016 Sep 22;90:e1-5. 5

Special Collaboration: Metrics in Academic Profiles: A New Addictive Game For Researchers?

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Special Collaboration: Metrics in Academic Profiles: A New Addictive Game For Researchers?

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Special Collaboration: Metrics in Academic Profiles: A New Addictive Game For Researchers?

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2016 Sep 22;90:e1-5. www.msc.

Receipt: 2016 Sep 21

Metrics in academic profiles: a new addictive game for researchers?

Los autores declaran que no existe conflicto de intereses

Palabras clave: Bibliometría, Perfiles académicos, Gamificación, Re-

ACADEMIC PROFILES: Table 1

2 Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2016 Sep 22;90:e1-5.

Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2016 Sep 22;90:e1-5. 3

cial relations (personal dimension) might be BIBLIOGRAFÍA

4 Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2016 Sep 22;90:e1-5.

6. Delgado-Lopez-Cozar E, Ruiz-Pérez R, Jiménez-

7. Camí, J. Impactolatria, diagnóstico y tratamiento.

8. American Society for Cell Biology. San Francisco

9. Hicks, D, Wouters, P, Waltman, L, Rijcke, SD, Rafols,

10. Hammarfelt B, de Rijcke SD, Rushforth AD. Quan-

11. Delgado López-Cózar E, Robinson-García N, Torres-

Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2016 Sep 22;90:e1-5. 5

También podría gustarte