Assessing the Reliability and Transparency of ScholarGPS: A Website Review
Chaman Sab M1★, Mueen Ahmed KK2, Mohammed Yunus2★ Corresponding author
- 1A.R.G. College of Arts and Commerce, Davanagere, Karnataka, INDIA.
- 2Manuscript Technomedia, 22 (New # 40), 3rd Cross, Vivekananda Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka, INDIA.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chaman Sab M
A.R.G. College of Arts and Commerce, Davanagere, Karnataka, INDIA.
Received: 11-02-2026; Revised: 09-03-2026; Accepted: 22-04-2026.
Volume 5, Issue 1 · pp. 68–72 · PUBLISHED 2026 · DOI: 10.5530/jcitation.20260259
View on JDSICS original site ↗
ABSTRACT
The rapid expansion of scholarly content and digital research tools has led to an increasing dependence on bibliometric indicators and academic ranking systems. ScholarGPS, an emerging research analytics platform, claims to offer comprehensive rankings of scholars, institutions, and disciplines using proprietary algorithms and large-scale publication data. This article critically examines the reliability and transparency of ScholarGPS through a systematic website review enriched by a literature-based analysis of bibliometrics, ranking methodologies, and data governance. The review focuses on the platform’s data sources, methodological clarity, algorithmic design, fractional authorship logic, and the degree of openness in its reporting. Findings indicate that while ScholarGPS offers broad coverage and uses modern scientometric constructs such as fractional h-index and self-citation normalisation, there are notable gaps in metadata disclosure, algorithmic weight specifications, and governance transparency. The article concludes with implications for researchers, institutions, and evaluators, offering recommendations for responsible use and future methodological improvements
KEYWORDS
REFERENCES
As publishedShowing references and in-text citations exactly as published.
Cite this article
SELECT FORMAT
M, C. S., KK, M. A., & Yunus, M. (2026). Assessing the Reliability and Transparency of ScholarGPS: A Website Review. Journal of Data Science, Informetrics, and Citation Studies, 5(1), 68–72. https://doi.org/10.5530/jcitation.20260259
