Author profiles in Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, ORCID, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar: a case report
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.2304Keywords:
Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, ORCID, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, author identifiers, author disambiguation, researcher impactAbstract
Background: This study aimed to benchmark the availability and accuracy of author profiles for 45 faculty members within the Auburn University College of Nursing. Profile availability in the database platforms Web of Science, Scopus, and Dimensions were analyzed alongside the author-driven platforms ORCID, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar to set an understanding for the potential efforts needed for profile curation, publication tracking, and research impact assessments moving forward.
Case Presentation: Each of the six platforms were manually searched for faculty and name variations alongside both current and past institutional affiliations. All identified profiles were collected. Associated publication counts were recorded and database results were screened for accurate author identification. Among the author-driven platforms, ORCID had the highest adoption rate, with 64% of faculty, while ResearchGate and Google Scholar trailed with 38% and 16% faculty adoption, respectively. Web of Science offered profiles for 82% of faculty; Scopus offered profiles for 80% of faculty, and Dimensions only 53%. However, 53% of the associated publications were misattributed in Web of Science profiles compared to just 1% misattribution in Scopus and none in Dimensions.
Conclusions: Among our faculty, Scopus offered the most efficient author profile platform, balancing profile availability, minimizing misattribution, and including avenues for early identification of new authors. While largely in line with previous study findings, this effort provided important contextual understandings of profile data availability which can be used to inform research impact assessments and library services supporting author profiles for highlighting scholarly influence.
References
1. Craft AR. Managing researcher identity: tools for researchers and librarians. Serials Rev. 2020;46(1):44–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2020.1720897.
2. Fuhr J, Monnin C. Researcher profile system adoption and use across discipline and rank: a case study at the University of Manitoba. Quant Sci Stud. 2024;5(3):573–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00319.
3. Tran CY, Lyon JA. Faculty use of author identifiers and researcher networking tools. Coll Res Libr. 2017;78(2):171–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.2.171.
4. Gutzman KE, Bales ME, Belter CW, Chambers T, Chan L, Holmes KL, et al. Research evaluation support services in biomedical libraries. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(1):1–14. Epub 20180102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.205.
5. Watson R, McKenna HP, Thompson DR. Increasing citations to your work. J Adv Nurs. 2019;75(8):1601–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14010.
6. Matthews D. Drowning in the literature? these smart software tools can help. Nature. 2021;597(7874):141–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02346-4.
7. Pados BF. Promoting your scholarly work to increase awareness and impact. Adv Neonatal Care. 2022;22(1):1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/anc.0000000000000977.
8. Tang A, Li KK, Han S, Kwok KO, Tung N, Tam W. Amplifying research influence through the social network, open access publishing, and international collaboration: a mediation analysis on nursing studies literature. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2023;55(2):477–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12827.
9. Willems L. History of Scopus innovation [Internet]. Scopus Blog. Elsevier; 5 Jan 2025. [cited 28 Apr 2026]. https://blog.scopus.com/history-of-scopus-innovation/.
10. Scopus author profiles [Internet]. Elsevier; n.d. [cited Apr 28 2026]. https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/author-profiles#1-how-profiles-are-built.
11. Enserink M. Are you ready to become a number? Science. 2009;323(5922):1662–4. DOI: https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.323.5922.1662.
12. ResearcherID [Internet]. Wikipedia; 19 Jun 2025 [cited 28 Apr 2026]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearcherID.
13. How are researchers unified/disambiguated in Dimensions? [Internet]. Digital Science; 2021 Jul 8. [cited 28 Apr 2026]. https://plus.dimensions.ai/support/solutions/articles/23000018779-how-are-researchers-unified-disambiguated-in-dimensions-.
14. About Web of Science researcher profiles [Internet]. Clarivate; 2026. [cited 28 Apr 2026]. https://webofscience.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/25349933314193-About-Web-of-Science-Researcher-Profiles.
15. Thelwall M, Kousha K. ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: which finds more early citations? Scientometrics. 2017;112(2):1125–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2400-4.
16. Singh VK, Srichandan SS, Lathabai HH. ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why? Scientometrics. 2022;127(3):1515–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04264-2.
17. Porter SR, Umbach PD, Willis C. Understanding ORCID adoption among academic researchers. Scientometrics. 2025;130(5):2783–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05300-7.
18. Funders' ORCID policies [Internet]. ORCID blog. n.d. [cited 28 Apr 2026]. https://info.orcid.org/funders-orcid-policies/.
19. The Newsroom. Auburn University achieves research milestone with ‘R1’ Carnegie classification [Internet]. Auburn University; 17 Dec 2018 [cited 28 Apr 2026]. https://ocm.auburn.edu/newsroom/news_articles/2018/12/171722-r1-carnegie-classification.php.
20. Huff J. Auburn’s first-year retention, graduation rates reach all-time highs: institution maintains its reputation among nation's best universities [Internet]. Auburn University; 24 Sep 2024 [cited 28 Apr 2026]. https://wire.auburn.edu/content/provost/2024/09/240807-first-year-retention.php.
21. Goal #2: impactful research and creative scholarship [Internet]. Auburn University; 2024 [cited 28 Apr 2026]. https://auburn.edu/administration/president/strategic-plan/goals/two/.
22. ORCID information in Dimensions, and linking your ORCID record [Internet]. Digital Science; 24 Feb 2022. [cited 28 Apr 2026]. https://plus.dimensions.ai/support/solutions/articles/23000014557-orcid-information-in-dimensions-and-linking-your-orcid-record.
23. Shillum C, Sadler S, Petro J. ORCID poised to support research institutions in new era of public access and research security [Internet]. ORCID Blog. 28 Mar 2023. [cited 28 Apr 2026]. https://info.orcid.org/orcid-poised-to-support-research-institutions-in-new-era-of-public-access-and-research-security/.
24. NSPM-33 & ORCID: information for research organizations [Internet]. LyrasisNow. 26 Apr 2023. [cited 28 Apr 2026]. https://lyrasisnow.org/nspm-33-orcid-information-for-research-organizations/.
25. Boudry C, Durand-Barthez M. Use of author identifier services (ORCID, ResearcherID) and academic social networks (academia.edu, ResearchGate) by the researchers of the University of Caen Normandy (France): a case study. PLoS One. 2020;15(9). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238583.
26. Thelwall M, Kousha K. ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015;66(5):876–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23236.
27. Mason S, Sakurai Y. A ResearchGate-way to an international academic community? Scientometrics. 2021;126(2):1149–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03772-3.
28. Mondal D, Kar DC. Usage of ResearchGate by the research scholars: a study of the University of Calcutta. Libr Philos Pract. 2021;2021:5158.
29. Cozma R, Dimitrova D. Research Gate or revolving door? uses and gratifications of academic social media among communication scholars. Journal Mass Commun Educ. 2021;76(3):282–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695820965030.
30. Da Silva JAT, Yamada Y. Reflection on ResearchGate's terminating ResearchGate score, and interest score, as social media altmetrics and academic evaluation tools. J Sch Publ. 2023;54(2):239–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0043.
31. De Groote SL, Raszewski R. Coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: a case study of the h-index in nursing. Nurs Outlook. 2012;60(6):391–400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2012.04.007.
32. Broome ME, Oermann MH, Douglas CE, Simmons DF, Woodward A. Publication productivity of nursing faculty in selected schools of nursing across the United States. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2019;51(3):346–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12463.
33. Powell KR, Peterson SR. Coverage and quality: a comparison of Web of Science and Scopus databases for reporting faculty nursing publication metrics. Nurs Outlook. 2017;65(5):572–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.03.004.
34. Guerrero-Bote VP, Chinchilla-Rodriguez Z, Mendoza A, de Moya-Anegon F. Comparative analysis of the bibliographic data sources Dimensions and Scopus: an approach at the country and institutional levels. Front Res Metr Anal. 2020;5:593494. Epub 20210122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2020.593494.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Kimberly R Powell
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
