Skip to main content
Academia

Return to Answer

corrected typos
Source Link
ff524
ff524
  • 109.8k
  • 50
  • 425
  • 476

The different services such as Researcher ID, ResearchGate, LinkedIn have not generally caught on in application procressesprocesses (I am sure there are several exceptions). I am, however, sure these will become more common. To use the h-index provided in ResearcherID is one way to get a relative standard measure, compared to one calculated by each individual. Hence, I am sure these linkable sources will become more common in application procedures.

I use researcherID in my CV and am now on ResearchGate and will use their measures as well. Since they are official checkable soures I think they serve well in CVs. In my case,however however, I have noticed that maybe 5-10% of the citations I can find in webWeb of Science cannot be found through Researcher ID, this is because some references occure as several entries due to errors in peoples reference lists etc. I believe it is possible to send in error reports to Web of Science to get corrections made. This means that the total number of citations through, for exxampleexample, ResearcherID may be smaller than what you think you should have. But since thisproblemthis problem likely affects everyone in a similar way the values are still comparable, at least that is howI think about it.

So, I think it is fair and very useful to list these measures that can be independently checked. You could (should) check your field to see what services are often used and perhaps focus on those first.

The different services such as Researcher ID, ResearchGate, LinkedIn have not generally caught on in application procresses (I am sure there are several exceptions). I am, however, sure these will become more common. To use the h-index provided in ResearcherID is one way to get a relative standard measure, compared to one calculated by each individual. Hence, I am sure these linkable sources will become more common in application procedures.

I use researcherID in my CV and am now on ResearchGate and will use their measures as well. Since they are official checkable soures I think they serve well in CVs. In my case,however, I have noticed that maybe 5-10% of the citations I can find in web of Science cannot be found through Researcher ID, this is because some references occure as several entries due to errors in peoples reference lists etc. I believe it is possible to send in error reports to Web of Science to get corrections made. This means that the total number of citations through, for exxample, ResearcherID may be smaller than what you think you should have. But since thisproblem likely affects everyone in a similar way the values are still comparable, at least that is howI think about it.

So, I think it is fair and very useful to list these measures that can be independently checked. You could (should) check your field to see what services are often used and perhaps focus on those first.

The different services such as Researcher ID, ResearchGate, LinkedIn have not generally caught on in application processes (I am sure there are several exceptions). I am, however, sure these will become more common. To use the h-index provided in ResearcherID is one way to get a relative standard measure, compared to one calculated by each individual. Hence, I am sure these linkable sources will become more common in application procedures.

I use researcherID in my CV and am now on ResearchGate and will use their measures as well. Since they are official checkable soures I think they serve well in CVs. In my case, however, I have noticed that maybe 5-10% of the citations I can find in Web of Science cannot be found through Researcher ID, this is because some references occure as several entries due to errors in peoples reference lists etc. I believe it is possible to send in error reports to Web of Science to get corrections made. This means that the total number of citations through, for example, ResearcherID may be smaller than what you think you should have. But since this problem likely affects everyone in a similar way the values are still comparable, at least that is howI think about it.

So, I think it is fair and very useful to list these measures that can be independently checked. You could (should) check your field to see what services are often used and perhaps focus on those first.

Source Link
Peter Jansson
Peter Jansson
  • 74k
  • 12
  • 207
  • 347

The different services such as Researcher ID, ResearchGate, LinkedIn have not generally caught on in application procresses (I am sure there are several exceptions). I am, however, sure these will become more common. To use the h-index provided in ResearcherID is one way to get a relative standard measure, compared to one calculated by each individual. Hence, I am sure these linkable sources will become more common in application procedures.

I use researcherID in my CV and am now on ResearchGate and will use their measures as well. Since they are official checkable soures I think they serve well in CVs. In my case,however, I have noticed that maybe 5-10% of the citations I can find in web of Science cannot be found through Researcher ID, this is because some references occure as several entries due to errors in peoples reference lists etc. I believe it is possible to send in error reports to Web of Science to get corrections made. This means that the total number of citations through, for exxample, ResearcherID may be smaller than what you think you should have. But since thisproblem likely affects everyone in a similar way the values are still comparable, at least that is howI think about it.

So, I think it is fair and very useful to list these measures that can be independently checked. You could (should) check your field to see what services are often used and perhaps focus on those first.