IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms


  • Hamid R. Jamali
  • David Nicholas
  • Eti Herman


Structural changes to the scholarly environment are taking place as a result of the introduction of Web 2.0 technologies, which have given rise to Open Science 2.0 initiatives, such as open access publishing, open data, citizen science, and open peer evaluation systems. In turn, this is leading to new ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation through emerging platforms, such as ResearchGate. The article reports the findings of a survey of the opinions and practices of 251 European scholars about this emerging scholarly market. Findings showed that traditional research-related activities, including conducting and collaborating in research, taking part in multidisciplinary projects, and publishing in journals contribute most to scholarly reputation. The greatest weaknesses of reputational platforms were a lack of trustworthiness and being open to gaming. The large majority of researchers, despite some reservations, thought that reputational systems were here to stay and will become increasingly important in the future, and especially for younger researchers.

Suggested Citation

  • Hamid R. Jamali & David Nicholas & Eti Herman, 2016. "Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 37-49.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:25:y:2016:i:1:p:37-49.

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Hamid R. Jamali, 2017. "Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 241-254, July.
    2. Sergio Copiello & Pietro Bonifaci, 2019. "ResearchGate Score, full-text research items, and full-text reads: a follow-up study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1255-1262, May.
    3. Zahedi, Zohreh & Haustein, Stefanie, 2018. "On the relationships between bibliographic characteristics of scientific documents and citation and Mendeley readership counts: A large-scale analysis of Web of Science publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 191-202.
    4. Amalia Mas-Bleda & Mike Thelwall, 2016. "Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2007-2030, December.
    5. Vicente-Saez, Ruben & Martinez-Fuentes, Clara, 2018. "Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 428-436.
    6. Sergio Copiello & Pietro Bonifaci, 2018. "A few remarks on ResearchGate score and academic reputation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 301-306, January.
    7. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 351-360, July.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:25:y:2016:i:1:p:37-49.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.