درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Purpose: Accurate scientific evaluation of researchers by ResearchGate network is still ambiguous. This systematic study seeks to shed some light on this issue.Methods: The study was conducted with a systematic review of the previous studies (articles or reports). The analysis of documents was performed with a targeted keyword search in the reputable Google Scholar, Emerald, and PubMed databases (without limit). Titles and abstracts (if necessary, full texts) of the number of 582 documents (Persian, English, and Spanish) were retrieved (1-10 April 2021) and studied. Then, by removing duplicate or irrelevant data, 57 independent studies were selected for meeting the main research problem of this systematic review (using the PRISMA statement). For drawing diagrams, Excel software was used.Findings: Among 57 previous independent studies  retrieved by systematic review, 30 ones, had a negative attitude towards the ResearchGate.  27 studies saw with positive approach from standpoint the concepts of "authentic measuring instrument", " presence of prominent scientists such as Nobel Prize recipients", "valid scientific content", and "having a significant relationship with the academic ranking criteria", and "compliance with the Hirsch indicator", that was identified by documentary analysis based on PRISMA statement. Studies with a positive assessment of the ResearchGate dealt with developing countries, and with a small investigated research community. Therefore, it is appropriate to act cautiously when evaluating researchers with the ResearchGate network.Originality: No similar systematic review to evaluate the ResearchGate network from the standpoint of a scientific suitable evaluation tool, has been done so far.