researchgate article search

Reference management. Clean and simple.

The top list of academic search engines

1. Google Scholar

4. science.gov, 5. semantic scholar, 6. baidu scholar, get the most out of academic search engines, frequently asked questions about academic search engines, related articles.

Academic search engines have become the number one resource to turn to in order to find research papers and other scholarly sources. While classic academic databases like Web of Science and Scopus are locked behind paywalls, Google Scholar and others can be accessed free of charge. In order to help you get your research done fast, we have compiled the top list of free academic search engines.

Google Scholar is the clear number one when it comes to academic search engines. It's the power of Google searches applied to research papers and patents. It not only lets you find research papers for all academic disciplines for free but also often provides links to full-text PDF files.

• Coverage: approx. 200 million articles
• Abstracts: only a snippet of the abstract is available
• Related articles: ✔
• References: ✔
• Cited by: ✔
• Links to full text: ✔
• Export formats: APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, Vancouver, RIS, BibTeX

BASE is hosted at Bielefeld University in Germany. That is also where its name stems from (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine).

• Coverage: approx. 136 million articles (contains duplicates)
• Abstracts: ✔
• Related articles: ✘
• References: ✘
• Cited by: ✘
• Export formats: RIS, BibTeX

CORE is an academic search engine dedicated to open-access research papers. For each search result, a link to the full-text PDF or full-text web page is provided.

• Coverage: approx. 136 million articles
• Links to full text: ✔ (all articles in CORE are open access)
• Export formats: BibTeX

Science.gov is a fantastic resource as it bundles and offers free access to search results from more than 15 U.S. federal agencies. There is no need anymore to query all those resources separately!

• Coverage: approx. 200 million articles and reports
• Links to full text: ✔ (available for some databases)
• Export formats: APA, MLA, RIS, BibTeX (available for some databases)

Semantic Scholar is the new kid on the block. Its mission is to provide more relevant and impactful search results using AI-powered algorithms that find hidden connections and links between research topics.

• Coverage: approx. 40 million articles
• Export formats: APA, MLA, Chicago, BibTeX

Although Baidu Scholar's interface is in Chinese, its index contains research papers in English as well as Chinese.

• Coverage: no detailed statistics available, approx. 100 million articles
• Abstracts: only snippets of the abstract are available
• Export formats: APA, MLA, RIS, BibTeX

RefSeek searches more than one billion documents from academic and organizational websites. Its clean interface makes it especially easy to use for students and new researchers.

• Coverage: no detailed statistics available, approx. 1 billion documents
• Abstracts: only snippets of the article are available
• Export formats: not available

Consider using a reference manager like Paperpile to save, organize, and cite your references. Paperpile integrates with Google Scholar and many popular databases, so you can save references and PDFs directly to your library using the Paperpile buttons:

Google Scholar is an academic search engine, and it is the clear number one when it comes to academic search engines. It's the power of Google searches applied to research papers and patents. It not only let's you find research papers for all academic disciplines for free, but also often provides links to full text PDF file.

Semantic Scholar is a free, AI-powered research tool for scientific literature developed at the Allen Institute for AI. Sematic Scholar was publicly released in 2015 and uses advances in natural language processing to provide summaries for scholarly papers.

BASE , as its name suggest is an academic search engine. It is hosted at Bielefeld University in Germany and that's where it name stems from (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine).

CORE is an academic search engine dedicated to open access research papers. For each search result a link to the full text PDF or full text web page is provided.

Science.gov is a fantastic resource as it bundles and offers free access to search results from more than 15 U.S. federal agencies. There is no need any more to query all those resources separately!

• WESTCHESTER CAMPUS
• Social Media Center
• Directories

Citation Analysis: Tools for finding who's citing you and calculating journal impact

• Part 1: Citation Analysis Tools
• Part 2: Metric Impact Tools
• Part 3: Predatory Publishing
• Part 4: Journal Verification Resources

What is ResearchGate and is it RELIABLE?

In the last few years, I have received several questions about ResearchGate , the social network site for academics.  Launched in 2008, their stated aim was to help researchers communicate quickly via their platform, making it easy to share and access scientific and scholarly knowledge and or expertise.  It’s free to join and each member is given a “profile page” whereby they can give a brief biographical snapshot and list their publications.  Just seven years later, ResearchGate has a noteworthy reach with  more than 3,000 scientists polled by Nature reporting they were “aware” of ResearchGate and just under half said they “visited ResearchGate regularly” (Van Noorden 2014).   On first glance, it might seem that ResearchGate has a wide coverage of articles from different disciplines and years but its coverage of recent years is far more substantial and some disciplines such as the arts and humanities as well as some areas of social sciences receive sparse coverage (Thelwall and Kousha 2015).   So as an academic social network, most reviewers have no qualms with ResearchGate per se.  The problems scholars have is with the ResearchGate SCORE as a measure of a researcher’s scientific reputation .   Questions that came to mind when taking a closer look at ResearchGate were: 1) How do they get that score? 2)Why isn’t their method transparent? 3)How do we know that their viewing figures are not artificially inflated?  These were the questions I set out to answer as I approached this research project.  I thought surely there must be numerous studies taking a critical look at how far and wide ResearchGate strays from well-established bibliometric guidelines for research metrics.  

Luckily, I found quite a few papers that address these very questions and their conclusions were interesting and surprising.  The most surprising thing I found was that no study, to date, has been able to refute or confirm that ResearchGate’s viewing figures are artificially inflated.  So this question continues to taunt.  There was consensus on the fact that ResearchGate’s article views have low to moderate correlations with both Scopus citations and Mendeley readers (Thelwall and Kousha 2014).  Incidentally, Mendeley is Elsevier’s answer to a social citation manager that helps author’s keep track of their citations and like ResearchGate and Academia.edu it has a social component.  Some studies concluded that if the article intake and reputation of ResearchGate continues to grow then the correlation factor between ReseachGate metrics and traditional research metrics will also increase as ResearchGate becomes more comprehensive.  Other papers/studies I read gave opposite evidence and found the ResearchGate Score to have serious limitations going so far as to say “the ResearchGate Score should not be considered in the evaluation of academics in its current form (Kraker and Lex 2015).   Of course some scholars argue that the ResearchGate Score is a composite metric taking into account “social interactions” in tandem with traditional research metrics which gives a more “desirable” picture of impact but in the end there is no consensus on how to measure academic influence via social media (Jordan 2015).  

Apart from the papers and studies, I found that scholars either love or hate ResearchGate .  Many scholars find ReseachGate’s frequent use of automated e-mails (that claim to come from colleagues active on the site) a disgraceful tactic that lures people to join on false pretenses.  There have been incidents where profiles on the site have not been created by real people but have been created “automatically and incompletely” by culling details of scholar’s affiliations, publications records, etc. from off the web (Van Noorden 2014).   Others find that every important paper in their field has been easily and quickly accessed via ResearchGate.  In the end, what is a researcher to do who is seeking some kind of empirical yes or no about ResearchGate?  Like everything else, it depends . . .  if you are seeking an alternative or new way to get your work out there that alters the traditional metrics of scholarly communication, ResearchGate might just be the thing.  However, if you are seeking a reliable tool to measure your scholarly output then ResearchGate does not make the grade.  

Corvello,  V.,  Genovese,  A.,  &  Verteramo,  S.  (2014).  Knowledge  sharing among users of scientific social networking platforms.  Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 261, 369-380.

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.

Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C. &Meckel, M. (2015).  A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate  as  an  indicator  of  scientific  impact.  Journal  of  the  Association  for Information Science and Technology. doi: 10.1002/asi.23423

Jordan, K. (2015). Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric: Reflections and implications  for  practice.  In:  Quantifying  and  Analysing  Scholarly  Communication  on the Web (ASCW15), 30 June2015, Oxford. http://oro.open.ac.uk/43538/1/ASCW15_jordan_response_kraker-lex.pdf

Kadriu,   A.   (2013).   Discovering   value   in   academic   social  networks:   A   case   study   in ResearchGate.  In  Proceedings  of  the  35th International  Conference  on  Information Technology Interfaces (ITI2013) (pp. 57-62). Los Alamitos:IEEE Press.

Kraker,  P.  &  Lex,  E.  (2015).  A  critical  look  at  the  ResearchGate  score  as  a  measure  of scientific   reputation.   In   Proceedings   of   the  Quantifying   and   Analysing   Scholarly Communication on the Webworkshop (ASCW’15), Web Science conference 2015 (Oxford, UK, June 28 –July 1, 2015).

Ortega,  J.  L.  (2015).  Relationship  between  altmetric  and  bibliometric  indicators  across academic social sites: The case of CSIC's members. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 39-49.

Thelwall,  M.,  &  Kousha,  K.  (2014).  Academia.edu: Social network  or  academic  network? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 721-731.

Thelwall,  M.,  &  Kousha,  K.  (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating and measuring Scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 876-889.

Van  Noorden,  R.  (2014).   Scientists  and  the  social  network.  Nature, 512(7513),  126-129. http://www.nature.com/news/online-collaboration-scientists-and-the-social-network-1.15711.

• << Previous: Part 4: Journal Verification Resources
• Last Updated: Aug 9, 2021 2:16 PM
• URL: https://libguides.pace.edu/citationanalysis
• © Pace University
• Work at Pace
• Privacy Policy

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Med Libr Assoc
• v.107(2); 2019 Apr

ResearchGate

ResearchGate.  ResearchGate,  10115 Berlin, Germany;    http://www.researchgate.net ; free. 

Contemporary scholarly scientific research and publishing are characterized by a large number of journals, the fast tempo of publication, and the competitiveness of the funding process. These factors, in conjunction with the pervasive adoption of communication via social media platforms in academia, have given rise to a demand for new venues for scholars and scientists to collaborate on, publicize, share, and quantify the impact of their published works. Because medical librarians are an integral part of the research and scholarly communication process, the popularity of these new platforms calls for a basic familiarity with their features that an informed library professional can provide.

One example of a platform that has emerged in recent years in response to this demand is ResearchGate, a for-profit, social media–like scientific networking and collaboration website. The umbrella term “scholarly collaboration network” has been used to describe platforms like ResearchGate and its competitors.

ResearchGate was founded in Berlin in 2008 by two physicians and a computer scientist. Since its debut, the site has successfully attracted both large numbers of users as well as substantial private investment [ 1 ]. ResearchGate claims to have reached the 15 million member mark in 2017 [ 2 ].

ResearchGate’s primary feature is the individual researcher profile, which is used to promote scholarly production. The site creates profiles with information harvested from literature databases and other sources, while permitting researchers to create profiles by registering on the site. Standard elements of a profile include a dashboard-like overview, citations to published work, contact and career information, research interests, links to citations of potential interest, and selected impact metrics. Profiles can be augmented by including contact information, a photograph, citations to work that has not been discovered by ResearchGate, and full-text article content for sharing with other members. Site members can follow other researchers and their work, identify colleagues and coworkers such as lab personnel, and share details of current projects.

One distinctive feature is a question submission-and-response knowledgebase, allowing members to pose, respond to, and track questions regarding research and other topics of interest. There is also a proprietary quantitative altmetric called RG score. This score is based on work appearing in the researcher profile and other ResearchGate members’ interactions with it. The RG score has attracted criticism aimed at a lack of transparency in how it is calculated and at vulnerabilities leading to the potential of intentional inflation by those seeking to abuse it [ 3 ].

Revenue streams for the website include advertising that appears on its question-and-answer database page, job recruitment listings, and conference announcements. These displays are customized for individual users.

One characteristic ResearchGate shares with social media platforms is vigorous user engagement activity. The site frequently generates emails encouraging members to log in to monitor how many new views their profiles have garnered, how many members are following their research, and other metrics of engagement. While such notification messages can be managed in member account settings, these persistent enticements to spend time on the site mimic aspects of social media and are drawing increasing amounts of criticism. As with other social media platforms, the potential for misuse and malicious exposure of the accumulated user data are also concerns.

The high visibility that ResearchGate has achieved has not come without controversy. During the platform’s rise to prominence, one factor in its popularity was the large volume of full-text portable document format (PDF) articles present in many researcher profiles. These full-text PDFs were easily discoverable in web searches, making ResearchGate a popular source for article sharing.

Relevant to note is that a sizeable percentage of the articles that were available on ResearchGate were versions of PDFs that were protected by copyright law and not permitted to be shared. This fact came to the attention of a number of publishers and resulted in a coordinated effort on their part to address this issue.

In 2017, a group of publishers, including such large firms as ACS Publications and Elsevier, formed an organization called the Coalition for Responsible Sharing to pressure ResearchGate to take measures against distributing copyright-protected material on its platform. The coalition advocated for adherence to the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical (STM) Publishers’ “Voluntary Principles for Article Sharing on Scholarly Collaborations Networks,” a document outlining parameters for approved sharing among researchers [ 4 ].

ResearchGate responded to this pressure by removing some copyright-protected content, but at the time of this writing, the issue had not been completely resolved. Several large publishers, including SpringerNature, have recently announced an agreement to explore ways to allow their content to be shared legally on ResearchGate [ 5 ]. ACS and Elsevier are pursuing the matter in a US federal court [ 6 ].

ResearchGate’s success in building a large user base gives it the potential to survive the substantial legal challenges it faces. While the platform’s scale and attractive user interface may appeal to many researchers, issues such as a lack of transparency in the composition of the RG score, concerns regarding use of member data, and an attitude of ambivalence toward the complicated topic of article sharing contribute to a strong case that ResearchGate is not the optimal solution to the pressing need for a space for scholars and scientists to freely collaborate and communicate regarding their work.

Faculty and researchers : We want to hear from you! We are launching a survey to learn more about your library collection needs for teaching, learning, and research. If you would like to participate, please complete the survey by May 17, 2024. Thank you for your participation!

• University of Massachusetts Lowell
• University Libraries

ResearchGate

• Publications
• Sending Invitations
• ResearchGate Profile
• Question & Answer

How do I edit my publication’s details?

• Go to the publication’s ResearchGate page
• Click Edit on the toolbar below your publication’s title and abstract
• Make the necessary changes
• Click Save changes.

Quick Links

• Join ResearchGate (free)
• ResearchGate Help
• ResearchGate News
• ResearchGate Recruiting

Publications  is one of the most useful features on ResearchGate: whether you are adding your research (Journal articles, conference papers, and more), looking for research in your field, or simply downloading other researcher’s work. This research guide contains some useful tips on about adding or editing publication on ResearchGate. 

Two Ways to Add Publications

1. To add your unpublished work to your profile: 

Step 1:  After you are logged in to ResearchGate, go to your profile  Step 2:  Click on Add unpublished work in the top right-hand corner  Step 3:  Upload the file and enter the title, authors, and a description of your research  Step 4:  Click on Add to profile.

Second way to add a publication:

 Step 1: Once you are logged in to  ResearchGate , go on the top-left corner, and click on publications

Step 2:  Click on Add your publications in the right-hand corner  Step 3:   Upload the file and enter the title, authors, and a description of your research  Step 4:  Click on Add to profile.

Category of research

• Journal Articles
• Conference Papers
• All other Research

Another way to add your journal articles to your profile is by searching it on the ResearchGate database:

Step 1: On your profile page, click on Add your publications in the top right-hand corner

Step 2:  Select Journal articles 

Step 3:  Select Author match to be shown any author profiles matching your name

Step 4:  Confirm authorship of your research by clicking Yes next to anything you authored

Step 5:  Click Save to add your publications to your profile.

You can also add your own journal articles if you can‘t find on the ResearchGate database:

Step 3: Enter the title of the journal article you want to add to your profile

Step 4: Upload a full-text version of your article (optional)

Step 5: Click Continue

Step 6: Enter applicable details such as the authors, journal name, and publication date

Step 7: Click Finish to add your article to your profile.

To add research you presented at a conference to your profile:

Step 1: On your profile, click on add your publications in the top right-hand corner

Step 2:  Select Conference papers in the box that appears

Step 3 : Click Select file to find and upload your research (optional)

Step 4:  Enter the title of your research and click Continue

Step 5:  Enter details such as the authors and the conference name and date

Step 6: Click Finish to add your research to your profile.

To add other types of research to your profile (book, thesis, chapter, and more):

Step 1: Go to your profile, and click on add your publications in the top right-hand corner

Step 2:  Select all other research in the box that appears

Step 3: Select the type of research you are adding 

Step 4: Click Select file to find and upload your research (optional)

Step 5:  Enter the title of your research and click Continue

Step 6:  Enter any applicable details about your research

Step 7: Click Finish to add your research to your profile.

• << Previous: ResearchGate Profile
• Next: Question & Answer >>
• Last Updated: Oct 31, 2022 1:50 PM
• URL: https://libguides.uml.edu/c.php?g=334810

ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations?

• Published: 26 April 2017
• Volume 112 , pages 1125–1131, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• Mike Thelwall   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6065-205X 1 &
• Kayvan Kousha   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4827-971X 1  

8130 Accesses

46 Citations

56 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

ResearchGate has launched its own citation index by extracting citations from documents uploaded to the site and reporting citation counts on article profile pages. Since authors may upload preprints to ResearchGate, it may use these to provide early impact evidence for new papers. This article assesses the whether the number of citations found for recent articles is comparable to other citation indexes using 2675 recently-published library and information science articles. The results show that in March 2017, ResearchGate found less citations than did Google Scholar but more than both Web of Science and Scopus. This held true for the dataset overall and for the six largest journals in it. ResearchGate correlated most strongly with Google Scholar citations, suggesting that ResearchGate is not predominantly tapping a fundamentally different source of data than Google Scholar. Nevertheless, preprint sharing in ResearchGate is substantial enough for authors to take seriously.

Similar content being viewed by others

ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?

Vivek Kumar Singh, Satya Swarup Srichandan & Hiran H. Lathabai

Does Microsoft Academic find early citations?

Mike Thelwall

What does open peer review bring to scientific articles? Evidence from PLoS journals

Chunli Wei, Jingyi Zhao, … Jiang Li

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Citation counts are frequently used to support research evaluations, for example to help compare the relative merits of individual researchers or research groups. An ongoing problem with traditional citation is that they take several years to appear in the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus due to publishing delays. This is a major drawback for research evaluators because the most recent research seems likely to be the most relevant for an evaluation. In response, several alternatives have been proposed for early impact data. These include social web citations, altmetrics (Priem et al. 2010 ), and general web citations, webometrics (Vaughan and Shaw 2003 ), as well as article download counts (Halevi and Moed 2014 ; Moed 2005 ). Google Scholar is another logical alternative because its index can exploit public web documents, although its data can be time consuming to manually collect (Meho and Yang 2007 ), when the Publish or Perish software (Harzing and Van Der Wal 2009 ) is not suitable. Google Scholar seems to index more citations than Scopus (Moed et al. 2016 ), which in turn has a bigger citation index than the Web of Science (WoS) (Mongeon and Paul-Hus 2016 ). Another potential source is the citation data provided by ResearchGate since this is based upon an apparently large collection of publicly shared preprints, postprints and other documents. About half (51%) of the 78% user-uploaded articles ( n  = 500) that are not open access violate publisher copyright agreements (Jamali in press). This uploading may occur because authors believe that it will attract a greater audience for their work, and there is empirical evidence from Academia.adu that posting to an academic social network site helps to attract more citations than does posting to other parts of the public web (Niyazov et al. 2016 ). More generally, some researchers use academic social network sites as the primary mechanism for document sharing (Laakso et al. 2017 ).

ResearchGate is part of a general rise in the importance of professional social network sites (Brandão and Moro 2017 ). It is the most regularly used professional website for scientists, and the third most popular in the social sciences, arts and humanities, but Google Scholar is more popular in all cases (Van Noorden 2014 ). Academic social networks like ResearchGate and Academia.edu seem to primarily replicate existing academic structures (Jordan 2017 ), although they may give more space for younger researchers and women (e.g., Thelwall and Kousha 2014 ). ResearchGate has allowed authors to upload their articles to the site since 2009 (ResearchGate 2009 ). It added citation information to user profiles in 2013 (ResearchGate 2013 ) and subsequently introduced the citation-related h-index (ResearchGate 2016 ). Currently (April 2017), citation counts are displayed for individual articles in ResearchGate, along with the number of article reads and comments. The wide use of the site and the extensive uploading to it has apparently made it a competitor for Google Scholar in terms of a citation index derived from publicly-shared research papers.

ResearchGate provides an overall rating for each academic member, the RG Score, which reflects a combination of academic achievements and activities within the site (Orduña-Malea et al. 2016 ), although it correlates reasonably well with other indictors of academic prestige for individual researchers in at least one field (Yu et al. 2016 ). The number of times that an article has been viewed (now read) in ResearchGate has a positive correlation with its Scopus citation count, confirming that the site reflects scholarly-related activities and its indicators can be meaningful (Thelwall and Kousha 2017 ). Despite this, the uptake of ResearchGate varies greatly on an international scale (Thelwall and Kousha 2015 ) and so its data is likely to contain some systematic biases. Moreover, it can index low quality outputs, such as those from ghost journals (Memon 2016 ) which may undermine its indicators.

Despite the apparent promise of ResearchGate citation counts, especially for recent papers, there is no research that compares their magnitudes with current citation indexes. The main research goal of this paper is therefore to assess the relative magnitude of the ResearchGate and Google Scholar citation counts. For completeness, these are also compared against WoS and Scopus. Since the ability of ResearchGate to index articles depends on journal copyright policies, it is possible that the relative magnitude of the citation counts may vary by journal, assuming a moderate amount of journal self-citation. Thus, the second research question assesses journal differences. Finally, if ResearchGate citations were to be used as an impact indicator then it is important to assess the extent to which they agree with the other sources.

Which out of ResearchGate, Google Scholar, WoS and Scopus gives the most citations for recently published library and information science journal articles?

Does the answer to the above question vary by journal?

How similar are the rank orders of articles produced by the different sources?

English language research or review articles published in 86 Information Science and Library Science (IS & LS) journals during January 2016 to March 2017 were selected from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WoS). The list of IS & LS journals was extracted from Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports (JCR) Social Science 2015 edition.

DOIs of articles were searched through the syntax below using automatic Bing searches in Webometric Analyst ( http://lexiurl.wlv.ac.uk ) to locate article pages in ResearchGate by combining “DOI:” and the site:researchgate.net/publication command. Most ResearchGate publication pages contain DOIs of articles with “Reads, “Recommendations” and “Citations”. The publication pages identified by the Bing searches were downloaded with SocSciBot ( http://socscibot.wlv.ac.uk ) and a program was written to extract the main bibliographic information and citation counts (if any) from the downloaded pages. ResearchGate citations were extracted from a crawl of the ResearchGate website in March 2017 at the maximum speed permitted (three pages per hour). Although ResearchGate appeared to allow unrestricted web crawling according to its robots.txt file in March 2017 ( https://www.researchgate.net/robots.txt ), in practice a speed of more than three pages per hour resulted in the additional requests returning blank pages. The titles of article from ResearchGate were matched with WoS records, giving 2675 corresponding articles in both sources.

“DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2095-y ” site:researchgate.net/publication.

In order to save Scopus citations for further analysis, DOI of articles were searched in Scopus advance search option through OR operators (e.g., DOI ( 10.1108/ajim-03-2016-0036 ) OR DOI( 10.1080/00048623.2016.1165645 ) OR …). The bibliographic and citation information of the records identified in Scopus were saved and matched with ResearchGate and WoS data through their DOIs. The Publish or Perish software ( www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish ) was used to automatically extract Google Scholar citations to articles from each journal. Either ISSNs or journal names were searched in the Google Scholar Query option and publication years were limited to 2016–2017. Search results were saved and article titles were matched with the main data from ResearchGate, WoS and Scopus. From 2675 records in the study, 244 had no matches from the Google Scholar automatic searches and were instead manually extracted from Google Scholar in March 2017 by article title searches.

Citation counts are highly skewed (de Solla Price 1976 ) and so comparing mean citation counts could give a misleading impression of which source of citation data tends to give higher values. This problem can be remedied either by taking the geometric mean (Thelwall and Fairclough 2015 ; Zitt 2012 ) or by log-transforming the citation data with the formula ln(1 + citations) to reduce skewing (Thelwall 2017 ). In fact, since sets of citation counts tend to approximately follow a discretised lognormal distribution, whether for individual journals (Thelwall 2016b ) or entire fields (Thelwall 2016a ), it is reasonable to use normal distribution formula to calculate confidence intervals for the log-transformed data (Thelwall and Fairclough in press; Thelwall 2016c ). Hence, log-transformed citation counts were used and the normal distribution formula, 1.96 ± standard error, was used for 95% confidence intervals.

For the second question, average log-transformed citation counts were calculated for the journals with the most articles in the dataset, using 100 articles as a convenient cut-off. The choice of larger journals is pragmatic because smaller journals are less likely to produce statistically significant findings but will clutter the analysis.

For the third research question, Spearman correlations were calculated to assess the similarity in the rank orders produced by the different citation sources. Spearman is more appropriate than Pearson because it directly assesses rank order similarity. The results are likely to be misleadingly high because recently published articles have longer to attract citations than older articles, an unfair advantage. Hence, in the unlikely event that there is no underlying (i.e., long term) correlation between the data sources, there is still likely to be a positive correlation between all of them. Thus, the correlations should not be interpreted as statistical evidence of a relationship between the citation sources, but it is nevertheless reasonable to compare the relative magnitudes of the correlations between different pairs of citation sources since the time lag is the same for all of them.

ResearchGate found statistically significantly fewer citations than did Google Scholar, but more than both Scopus and Web of Science. Scopus found more citations than did WoS, although this excludes the results for 155 articles not indexed in Scopus (the All articles bar in Fig.  1 ).

Log-transformed citation counts and 95% confidence intervals for the six journals with over 100 articles in the sample, as well as for all articles in the sample ( n  = 2675 for all except n  = 2520 for Scopus, excluding non-indexed articles)

As a simple heuristic for interpreting the confidence limits in Fig.  1 , if the confidence intervals for two bars do not overlap then the difference is statistically significant at the 95% level. The converse is not necessarily true, however, because a small overlap is still consistent with statistical significance (Austin and Hux 2002 ; Julious 2004 ). Taking this into account, for all six large journals, the results are consistent with Google Scholar always tending to find more citations for each individual journal than ResearchGate, and with ResearchGate tending to find more than both WoS and Scopus, although the difference is smallest for Scientometrics .

Out of all the pairs of data sources, the most similar article ranks are given by Google Scholar and ResearchGate (Table  1 ). It is perhaps surprising that this correlation is higher than that between WoS and Scopus, which presumably rely upon similar publisher data sources, but the reason may be the higher numbers of uncited articles in the latter case.

Despite the overall results, there were individual articles for which there were many more Google Scholar citations than ResearchGate citations and some articles for which there were more ResearchGate citations. For example, “FEDS: a framework for evaluation in design science research” in the European Journal of Information Systems had 53 Google Scholar citations but only 6 ResearchGate citations. This was due to Google Scholar indexing documents from publishers (e.g., Springer) that were not available on the open web. At the other extreme, the paper “Evaluating the academic trend of RFID technology based on SCI and SSCI publications from 2001 to 2014” in Scientometrics had 30 ResearchGate citations but only 12 Google Scholar citations. All 30 citing documents in ResearchGate and all 12 Google Scholar citations were from PDF presentations uploaded by one of the authors (Nader Ale Ebrahim) and so in this case the results include no peer reviewed citations. Thus, there can be problems at the level of individual articles despite the overall positive correlations.

Limitations and conclusions

This study is limited by the focus on a single field and the results may not apply to other fields, particularly those that use ResearchGate less or upload preprints to ResearchGate less. The findings may also change over time if publishers enforce their copyright on ResearchGate more actively, if the popularity of ResearchGate changes, or if the indexing practices of Google Scholar change.

The results are primarily negative because they suggest that ResearchGate cannot yet challenge Google Scholar for early citation impact indicators. Moreover, although ResearchGate in theory allows automated data collection, unlike Google Scholar (except for Publish or Perish ), its current maximum crawling speed is a major practical limitation on its use for large scale data gathering.

More generally, the results show that ResearchGate has indexed impressively many citations for a single website and has become a major source of academic papers, perhaps even starting to challenge Google Scholar in this regard. Combined with the apparent citation advantage of uploading to academic social network sites (Niyazov et al. 2016 ), scholars should take ResearchGate seriously as a venue for disseminating their research. Nevertheless, like many web extracted indicators, such as Google Scholar citations (Delgado López-Cózar et al. 2014 ), ResearchGate citations can potentially be manipulated by uploading non-peer reviewed or fake documents and hence should be used cautiously for research evaluation.

Austin, P. C., & Hux, J. E. (2002). A brief note on overlapping confidence intervals. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 36 (1), 194–195.

Article   Google Scholar  

Brandão, M. A., & Moro, M. M. (2017). Social professional networks: A survey and taxonomy. Computer Communications, 100 (1), 20–31.

de Solla Price, D. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American society for Information science, 27 (5), 292–306.

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.

Halevi, G., & Moed, H. F. (2014). Usage patterns of scientific journals and their relationship with citations. In Proceedings of the Science and Technology Indicators Conference 2014 (STI 2014) , Leiden, Netherlands (pp. 241–251).

Harzing, A. W., & Van Der Wal, R. (2009). A Google Scholar h-index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (1), 41–46.

Jamali, H. R. (in press). Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics . doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2291-4 .

Jordan, K. (2017). Understanding the structure and role of academics’ ego-networks on social networking sites. Ph.D. thesis, The Open University. http://oro.open.ac.uk/48259/ .

Julious, S. A. (2004). Using confidence intervals around individual means to assess statistical significance between two means. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 3 (3), 217–222.

Laakso, M., Lindman, J., Shen, C., Nyman, L., & Björk, B.-C. (2017). Research output availability on academic social networks: Implications for stakeholders in academic publishing. Electronic Markets . doi: 10.1007/s12525-016-0242-1 .

Google Scholar  

Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (13), 2105–2125.

Memon, A. R. (2016). ResearchGate is no longer reliable: Leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 66 (12), 1643–1647.

Moed, H. F. (2005). Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 56 (10), 1088–1097.

Moed, H. F., Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2016). A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10 (2), 533–551.

Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106 (1), 213–228.

Niyazov, Y., Vogel, C., Price, R., Lund, B., Judd, D., Akil, A., et al. (2016). Open access meets discoverability: Citations to articles posted to Academia.edu. PLoS ONE, 11 (2), e0148257.

Orduña-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2016). ResearchGate como fuente de evaluación científica: Desvelando sus aplicaciones bibliométricas. El Profesional de la Información (EPI), 25 (2), 303–310.

Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ .

ResearchGate. (2009). Self-archiving repository goes online. https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/self-archiving-repository-goes-online .

ResearchGate. (2013). Introducing citations on ResearchGate. ResearchGate blog (7 February 2013). https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/introducing-citations-on-researchgate .

ResearchGate. (2016). Introducing the h-index on ResearchGate. ResearchGate blog (8 March 2016). https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/introducing-the-h-index-on-researchgate .

Thelwall, M. (2016a). Are the discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions plausible for citation data? Journal of Informetrics, 10 (2), 454–470.

Thelwall, M. (2016b). Citation count distributions for large monodisciplinary journals. Journal of Informetrics, 10 (3), 863–874. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.07.006 .

Thelwall, M. (2016c). The discretised lognormal and hooked power law distributions for complete citation data: Best options for modelling and regression. Journal of Informetrics, 10 (2), 336–346.

Thelwall, M. (2017). Three practical field normalised alternative indicator formulae for research evaluation. Journal of Informetrics, 11 (1), 128–151. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2016.12.002 .

Thelwall, M., & Fairclough, R. (2015). Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles. Journal of Informetrics, 9 (2), 263–272.

Thelwall, M., & Fairclough, R. (in press). The accuracy of confidence intervals for field normalised indicators. Journal of Informetrics . doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.03.004 .

Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2014). Academia.edu: Social network or academic network? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65 (4), 721–731.

Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66 (5), 876–889. doi: 10.1002/asi.23236 .

Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2017). ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size and impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68 (2), 468–479.

Van Noorden, R. (2014). Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512 (7513), 126.

Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2003). Bibliographic and web citations: What is the difference? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (14), 1313–1322.

Yu, M. C., Wu, Y. C., Alhalabi, W., Kao, H. Y., & Wu, W. H. (2016). ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers? Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1001–1006.

Zitt, M. (2012). The journal impact factor: Angel, devil, or scapegoat? A comment on JK Vanclay’s article 2011. Scientometrics, 92 (2), 485–503.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton, WV1 1LY, UK

Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mike Thelwall .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Thelwall, M., Kousha, K. ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations?. Scientometrics 112 , 1125–1131 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2400-4

Download citation

Received : 05 April 2017

Published : 26 April 2017

Issue Date : August 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2400-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• ResearchGate
• Early impact
• Citation analysis
• Academic social network sites
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Explore millions of high-quality primary sources and images from around the world, including artworks, maps, photographs, and more.

Explore migration issues through a variety of media types

• Part of The Streets are Talking: Public Forms of Creative Expression from Around the World
• Part of The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Winter 2020)
• Part of Cato Institute (Aug. 3, 2021)
• Part of University of California Press
• Part of Open: Smithsonian National Museum of African American History & Culture
• Part of Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Winter 2012)
• Part of R Street Institute (Nov. 1, 2020)
• Part of Leuven University Press
• Part of UN Secretary-General Papers: Ban Ki-moon (2007-2016)
• Part of Perspectives on Terrorism, Vol. 12, No. 4 (August 2018)
• Part of Leveraging Lives: Serbia and Illegal Tunisian Migration to Europe, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Mar. 1, 2023)
• Part of UCL Press

Harness the power of visual materials—explore more than 3 million images now on JSTOR.

Enhance your scholarly research with underground newspapers, magazines, and journals.

Explore collections in the arts, sciences, and literature from the world’s leading museums, archives, and scholars.

To revisit this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories .

The Most Romantic Restaurants in New York City

By Nicole Kliest

We may earn a commission if you buy something from any affiliate links on our site.

In a city where dining out is counted among the top things to do (if not the top thing to do), finding a spot to enjoy a meal in New York City is about as easy as sourcing a Chianti in a wine shop. But if your culinary pursuits tend to happen mostly around date night, take note of the most romantic restaurants in NYC outlined below.

While a discerning wine list and note-perfect dishes are always key when selecting a restaurant for an intimate dinner, the ambience is also paramount. Dim lighting, moody music, elegant decor, and an element of mystery are the prevailing requisites for a romantic table for two—and the 26 destinations ahead (both established and newly opened) deliver that in spades. Continue scrolling to discover where you should snag a reservation for your next evening out.

One of those rare New York City institutions that remains unchanged despite operating throughout several decades, Raoul’s is a French bistro that’s been a SoHo staple since 1975. Menu favorites include the steak au poivre and oysters, but the real quest is to secure their elusive and much-beloved burger, of which only about a dozen are served each weekday and only at the bar. It’s impressive, it’s delicious, and it’s definitely one of the most romantic spots for dinner in the city.

Al Di La Trattoria

Nestled on a peaceful corner in Park Slope, Al Di La Trattoria has been serving up handcrafted, simple Italian cuisine since the 1990s. It’s a classic mom-and-pop operation run by a husband and wife duo and is under the helm of chef Anna Klinger. Expect comforting dishes like large pasta loops with heritage pork shoulder ragu and wines ranging from acidic Etna Bianco to complex Nebbiolo. The space is small and snug but full of heart and a nod to old-world dining.

One of the most exciting recent openings in New York, this East Village basement restaurant from Joshua Pinsky and Chase Sinzer is the perfect destination for romance-fueled plate sharing. Begin with the red shrimp delivered in a sumptuous bed of oil and garlic, followed by the mushroom mille-feuille, topped off by the pork chop with smoked onion jus. Might as well order the devil’s food cake for two while you’re at it.

Dept of Culture

Eschewing the typical dinner format, this intimate restaurant in Bed-Stuy operates more like a communal supper series, with 6 and 8:30 p.m. seatings on Wednesdays and Thursdays. Couples who are lucky enough to snag seats are served Nigerian food by owner-chef Ayo Balogun, set to the tunes of a record player spinning 1970s Afrobeats. Chat with each other, make new friends, and relish in this uniquely romantic experience.

Minetta Tavern

In its early days, Minetta Tavern was frequented by the likes of Dylan Thomas and Ernest Hemingway. Nowadays, it’s owned by restaurateur Keith McNally and still attracts similarly magnetic personalities with its red leather banquettes and old-school sensibilities. Cozy up in a booth and order the black label burger with frites and a martini.

Snag a reservation at this Prospect Heights gem during the warmer months of the year, when you can enjoy seasonal ingredients in their tranquil backyard garden beneath leafy trees and cascading bistro lights. Opt for the tasting menu to get a full grasp of chef Greg Baxtrom’s vision, featuring dishes like sunchoke falafel with whipped Calabrian honey and rutabaga tagliatelle served with black truffle and brown butter bits.

Shimmy up to the intimate chef’s counter at this Michelin-starred immersive Korean dining experience in Flatiron. The ambience is sleek and sultry, with design by AvroKO , who referenced traditional Korean architecture and royal courts through their use of wooden wall paneling, deep plum hues, and a lavish marble countertop. The menu begins with small bites (mostly seafood and vegetables) then progresses into multiple omakase-style courses offering various meats.

Le Bernardin

It’s impossible to touch on fine dining in New York City without referencing Le Bernardin. For almost 40 years, Eric Ripert’s coveted cuisine has captured the hearts of locals and tourists alike, serving up unparalleled seafood in an inviting dining room rounded out by soft lighting and gentle music.

The Waverly Inn

By Marley Marius

By Deanna Pai

By Hannah Jackson

The vibes are strong at this iconic West Village townhouse on the corner of Bank and Waverly. Enjoy a pre-dinner drink in the pub by the fireplace (a rarity in NYC) then unwind in the garden with a decadent meal of grilled oysters and roasted chicken. The building dates back to the late 1800s and was originally a tavern, giving the entire experience a romantic old world feel.

Newly opened and overlooking Madison Square Park, this wood-fired Italian restaurant takes cuisine cues from rustic hearth cooking in Perugia and Naples. You and your date can relish in a hearty menu of house-made pastas and wood-fired pizzas washed down by a Lupetto Negroni or Venetian Spritz. The setting is also of note: wood, marble, tile, and brass textures conspire together to create a truly memorable ambiance.

Grand Central Oyster Bar

If nostalgia is your aphrodisiac, book a table at this legendary New York restaurant, opened in 1913. Better yet: grab a couple of stools at the bar for a round of oysters and a bottle of Chablis. It’s the kind of fuss-free place that after over a century still feels in-the-know, and can always be followed up with a romantic stroll beneath that gorgeous Grand Central Terminal ceiling mural.

Winner of the James Beard Awards’ Best New Restaurant title in 2019, this Tribeca brasserie oozes sleekness with its burgundy leather banquettes and marble floors. The food is top-notch and the natural wine list is curated by industry legend, Jorge Riera. Booking a table (or bar seat) here will always be the right choice.

This contemporary Mexican restaurant (featured in the World’s 50 Best) celebrates its 10-year anniversary in 2024 and is acclaimed for use of local and seasonal ingredients from the Hudson Valley and the surrounding region, while paying tribute to Mexican flavors. The dining room is dimly lit and sets the stage for a thoroughly memorable evening.

Spacious? No. Soulful and snug? Entirely. This restaurant sits on one of the best corners in the West Village and is known for its reliably tasty dishes and neighborhood feel. While the brunch tends to draw a crowd, make your way here for a romantic dinner and order the sautéed chicken with lemon, garlic, shallots, and sage.

The forsythia flower is traditionally the first to bloom come spring, referencing this Lower East Side restaurant’s spirit of renewal. Choose from the six-seat bar or cozy dining room, and from a selection of classic handmade Roman pastas and Italian amari. Even better: Book one of their pasta classes for an immersive take on date night.

Quietly perched on a Tribeca cobblestone street corner, this Michelin-starred French-Japanese restaurant is a favorite thanks to its seasonal tasting menu that sources from France, Japan, and local New York farms. The French-focused wine list is also a major highlight (opt for the pairings) and interiors featuring green velvet banquettes create a romantic, intimate mood.

Saraghina Caffe

Inspired by the Viennese-style cafes of fin-de-siècle Milan, Edoardo Mantelli transplanted this convivial feel to his Fort Greene restaurant where guests can feast upon squid ink tagliolini while sipping on orange Trebbiano or a Milanese aperitivo. Dark wood paneling and soaring ceilings frame atmospheric details like a mid-century modern chandelier and black-and-white tiled floors, creating the perfect atmosphere for date night.

Le Pavillon

A lush respite from the city streets, Daniel Boulud’s Michelin-starred restaurant is recognizable for its soaring ceiling and greenery woven throughout the dining room, including magnificent 20-foot olive trees. The menu focuses on seafood and vegetable-centric cuisine, with an extensive rotating by-the-glass list that matches the seasonal menu.

Elegantly situated within the Lowell Hotel near Central Park, this romantic restaurant nods to seasonal blooms with its year-round outdoor seating and airy dining room accented by extravagant floral arrangements and fireplace. The menu is full of French favorites, including the Grand Marnier soufflé.

If sharing dishes is your love language, head straight for two stools at just-opened, Penny. This walk-in raw bar is from the team behind Claud and the seating is exclusively at the counter, creating a casual, cozy vibe. Don’t sleep on the stuffed squid or ice cream sandwich, and be sure to order from the expertly-curated wine list (psst: the Corpinnat is a winner).

Right where Chinatown meets the Lower East Side sits this 36-seat restaurant by chef Ron Yan, with wines curated by Parcelle . Interiors set the tone for a tasty meal of sweet & sour crispy fish and duck confit spring rolls, with custom banquette seating underneath distressed mirrors and distinctive rattan furniture by Chinese-American designer Danny Ho Fong. Keep an eye out for other unique design moments, including antique Chinese cabinets and a vintage Borsani bar in the entryway.

Any one of chef Rita Sodi’s restaurants would qualify as a worthy pick for date night, but it’s the garden at I Sodi’s new (and more spacious) location on Bleecker and Grove that feels especially romantic. Nibble on polenta e stracchino and house-made whole wheat pasta with oxtail and porcini for your next night out in the village.

Caviar Kaspia at The Mark

Nothing says romance quite like caviar, especially when it’s enjoyed at The Mark. This Central Park-adjacent restaurant boasts interiors by Jacques Grange and a menu that includes a twice-baked potato served with a selection of caviar.

The Golden Swan

Tucked away inside a historic two-story townhouse, this new restaurant from Chef Doug Brixton and restaurateur Matthew Abramcyk feels like quintessential New York. Enjoy French and Mediterranean flavors from either the ground floor window-wrapped bar (The Wallace Room) or upstairs in the main dining room.

La Mercerie

With design by the renowned studio Roman and Williams, it’s no wonder this intricate space makes for a romantic meal. Grab a table in one of the plush banquettes positioned beside striking floral arrangements and with exquisite table settings, which you can purchase from the store once you’ve finished your meal.

Four award-winning chefs were selected from Japan to craft a luxurious dining experience at this new restaurant on the lower floor of the recently renovated Prince Kitano New York. Expect elegant courses of seasonal meats, seafood, and produce served in a sophisticated setting, accentuated by a metal grille ceiling and bronze-paneled walls that were inspired by Modernist minimalism.

More Great Living Stories From Vogue

The Best Places in the World for Solo Travel

Candice Bergen on What It Was Really Like to Attend Truman Capote’s Black and White Ball

The Curious Case of Kate Middleton’s “Disappearance”

Sofia Richie Grainge Is Pregnant! And It’s a….

Never miss a Vogue moment and get unlimited digital access for just $2 $1 per month.

Get updates on the Met Gala

By signing up you agree to our User Agreement (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions ), our Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement and to receive marketing and account-related emails from Architectural Digest.. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Argonne National Laboratory

U.s. department of energy’s incite program seeks proposals for 2025 to advance science and engineering at u.s. leadership computing facilities, researchers can apply for access to doe ’s exascale supercomputers.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s ( DOE ) Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment ( INCITE ) program is now accepting proposals for high-impact, computationally intensive research projects in a broad array of science, engineering and computer science domains. Proposals must be submitted between April 10 and June 14.

The INCITE program aims to accelerate scientific discoveries and technological innovations by awarding researchers with substantial allocations of supercomputer time and supporting resources at the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility ( ALCF ) and the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility ( OLCF ). The ALCF and OLCF are DOE Office of Science user facilities located at DOE ’s Argonne National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, respectively.

“ INCITE is the flagship program for leadership computing. Every year, there is real excitement to see the impactful and challenging science projects that researchers are trying to tackle,” said Katherine Riley, ALCF director of science. ​ “ As we move fully into the era of exascale computing, I look forward to fantastic proposals.”

Open to researchers around the world from academia, industry and government agencies, the INCITE program will award up to 60% of the allocable time on DOE ’s leadership-class supercomputers: the OLCF ’s Frontier, a 1.2 exaflops HPE Cray EX machine; ALCF ’s Polaris, a 34 petaflops (44 petaflops of Tensor Core FP64 performance) HPE Cray machine; and Aurora, an Intel-HPE Cray EX system with a theoretical peak performance of more than 2 exaflops. Proposals may request project durations from one to three years.

“ I’m excited to see how investigators from a variety of scientific disciplines are thinking about using our world-leading and globally unique computational resources and expertise through the INCITE program,” said ORNL ’s Bronson Messer, OLCF ’s director of science. ​ “ Pushing the frontiers of discovery in every scientific domain is a hallmark of leadership computing and INCITE lies firmly at the heart of that enterprise.” 

In addition to seeking traditional simulation-based projects, the call for proposals is open to projects involving applications in data science, such as data-intensive computing and machine learning, and projects with complicated workflows. Furthermore, crosscutting proposals that integrate simulation, data and learning methods are encouraged.

Every proposal undergoes a peer-review process aimed at pinpointing projects with the highest potential for impact and a clear need for leadership-class systems to tackle significant challenges. Applications are also assessed for computational readiness to gauge how efficiently the proposed projects will use the requested systems.

INCITE is once again committing 10% of allocable time to an Early Career Track in 2025. Since 2022, the program has sought to encourage the next generation of high performance computing researchers by focusing on principal investigators ( PI ) who have earned a doctorate degree within the last 10 years. Researchers who earned their Ph.D. on or after Dec. 31, 2014, and who have not served as PI on a previous INCITE project are eligible. Applicants’ project proposals will go through the regular INCITE Technical Assessment (previously called Computational Readiness) and Peer Review process, but the INCITE management committee will consider meritorious projects in the Early Career Track separately.

To submit a proposal or read additional details about the requirements, visit https://​www​.doeleadershipcomputing.org/call-for-proposals/ . Proposals will be accepted until 8 p.m. ET on Friday, June 14. Awards are expected to be announced in November.

For more information on the INCITE program and a list of previous awards, visit www​.doe​lead​er​ship​com​put​ing​.org .

Preparing for INCITE  

The INCITE program will host informational webinars on April 23 and May 7. Registration links will be posted here when available:  https://​doe​lead​er​ship​com​put​ing​.org/​i​n​f​o​r​m​a​t​i​o​n​a​l​-​w​e​b​i​nars/ .

The Argonne Leadership Computing Facility provides supercomputing capabilities to the scientific and engineering community to advance fundamental discovery and understanding in a broad range of disciplines. Supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s ( DOE ’s) Office of Science, Advanced Scientific Computing Research ( ASCR ) program, the ALCF is one of two DOE Leadership Computing Facilities in the nation dedicated to open science.

Argonne National Laboratory seeks solutions to pressing national problems in science and technology. The nation’s first national laboratory, Argonne conducts leading-edge basic and applied scientific research in virtually every scientific discipline. Argonne researchers work closely with researchers from hundreds of companies, universities, and federal, state and municipal agencies to help them solve their specific problems, advance America’s scientific leadership and prepare the nation for a better future. With employees from more than 60 nations, Argonne is managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science .

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, visit https://​ener​gy​.gov/​s​c​ience .

33,360 Palestinians killed in Israel's military offensive on Gaza since Oct.7

• Medium Text

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

Reporting by Ali Sawafta; Editing by Andrew Heavens

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

World Chevron

China tried to meddle but Canadians decided the last two elections, says PM Trudeau

China tried to meddle in the last two Canadian elections but the results were not impacted and it was "improbable" Beijing preferred any one party over another, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told an official probe on Wednesday.

Russian forces launched deadly attacks on Wednesday on frequent targets in the south and north of Ukraine, in Kharkiv and Odesa regions, killing seven people and injuring many more, officials said.

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.