The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus for keep as GNG established with the addition of new sources. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScholarMate[edit]

ScholarMate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable company. All of the sources listed are affiliated with the site in some way.The first source is the company's homepage, the second is of an affiliate, while the last two are dead links. Even worser, this site has virtually no news coverage and was created by a one-purpose account. Interestingly, if you look in the article creator's talk page, it was actually speedy deleted but remade. ''Flux55'' (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The phrase Innovate Smarter in the article is a tagline from the products home page, so there is clearly some form of copypasta going on. More importantly, NN per nom MNewnham (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. ''Flux55'' (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find anything for this entity, there's another one with the same name using ChatGPT technology that pops up in searches. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. English-language sources:
     1. Zhang, Zitong; Patra, Braja; Yaseen, Ashraf; Zhu, Jie; Sabharwal, Rachit; Roberts, Kirk; Cao, Tru; Wu, Hulin (2023-06-04). "Scholarly recommendation systems: a literature survey". Knowledge and Information Systems. 65. Springer-Verlag London: 4446–4447. doi:10.1007/s10115-023-01901-x.

        The article notes: "ScholarMate, a social research management tool launched in 2007 was used in 4 publications. It has more than 70,000 research groups created by researchers for their own projects, collaboration, and communication. As a platform for presenting publication research outputs, ScholarMate automatically collects scholarly related information about researchers’ output from multiple online resources. These resources include multiple online databases such as Scopus, one of the largest abstract and citation databases for peer-reviewed literature, including scientific journals, books, and conference proceedings. ScholarMate uses aggregated data to provide researchers with recommendations on relevant opportunities based on their profiles."

     2. Xu, Jie; Yuan, Xiaoqun (2013-04-01). "Online scholarly publishing in China: Who? What? How?". Learned Publishing. 26 (2): 93. doi:10.1087/20130205. ISSN 0953-1513.

        The article notes: "ScholarMate (www.scholarmate.com) is another good example of dotcom companies playing a role in scolarly communication. ScholarMate is a professional research social network website whose aim is to promote research collaboration and information sharing. Inspired by Facebook and LinkedIn, ScholarMate collects personal research output through the Internet and sets up an entry of unified access to all online academic information for all users. By creating a profile page on ScholarMate, researchers can manage publications, build links with friends and colleagues, recommend funding and career opportunities, as well as disseminate reseach outputs to increase impacts and citations. Lanched in August 2012, the website now has more than 20,000 registered users and the number is increasing."

  2. Chinese-language sources:
     1. Zhang, Yaokun 张耀坤; Wu, Rui 吴瑞; Wang, Chaozhou 汪朝州 (January 2022). "我国本土学术社交网络科研之友的个案分析：困境与对策" [A Case Study of the Domestic Academic Social Networking Site ScholarMate in China: Dilemma and Countermeasures] (PDF). 高校图书馆工作 [Library Work in Colleges and Universities] (in Chinese). Hunan Provincial Department of Education [zh]. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1003-7845.2022.01.009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20.

        The abstract notes: "This paper conducts a case study of ScholarMate, which is the earliest and the largest academic social networking site in China. The analysis results show that ScholarMate has a relatively accurate positioning and has formed a unique business model, but its user activation has been low for a long time, suggesting that the users’ continuous use needs to be improved. Clarifying that users of academic social networking sites are motivated primarily by acquiring academic information, it defines the core value of academic social networking sites as helping to identify the most valuable content for users quickly and accurately through social relations. Based on this, corresponding countermeasures are put forward from three aspects: resources, information discovery and users."

     2. Xu, Zhimin 许志敏 (2018). "提高我国学术社交网络的国际传播能力——基于ResearchGate与"科研之友"等的比较研究" [Improving the International Communication Capabilities of China's Academic Social Networks—a Comparative Study Based on Researchgate and "Scholarmate"]. 科技与出版 [Science-Technology & Publication] (in Chinese) (7): 26–32. doi:10.16510/j.cnki.kjycb.2018.07.006. Archived from the original on 2024-02-20. Retrieved 2024-02-20 – via Tsinghua University Press.

        The abstract notes: "文章选取Research Gate和我国"科研之友"等作为案例进行比较研究,发现我国学术社交网络在定位、运营与发展上存在一些问题,如缺失全球化的运营理念与发展定位;用户规模和用户的国际化程度较低且用户的黏性不够;内容生产缺乏有效的激励机制和激励手段等。针对这些问题,提出一些对策建议。"

        From Google Translate: "The article selects ResearchGate and China's "ScholarMate" as cases for comparative study and finds that there are some problems in the positioning, operation and development of China's academic social networks, such as the lack of global operation concepts and development positioning; user scale and user characteristics. The degree of internationalization is low and user stickiness is not enough; content production lacks effective incentive mechanisms and incentives. In response to these problems, some countermeasures and suggestions are put forward."

     3. Liu, Xianhong 刘先红; Li, Gang 李纲 (2016). "科研社交网络的推荐系统对比分析" [Comparative Analysis of Recommender Systems of Research Social Networking Service]. 图书情报工作 [Library and Information Service] (in Chinese). 60 (9). Chinese Academy of Sciences: 116–122. doi:10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2016.09.016.

        The abstract notes: "This paper compares the recommender systems of four research social networking services of ResearchGate, Academia, Scholarmate and Scholat, from four aspects of recommending item, recommending strategy, cold start scheme and user preference learning method. [Result/conclusion] It finds that the recommender system of research social networking service of China has a obvious gap compared with foreign counterparts in above aspects. The problems include the fewer recommending items, insufficiency recommending strategies, poor effects of cold start, and weak abilities of user preference learning. Finally, it puts forwards some measures to solve these problems."

        The article notes: "2007 年正式上线的科研之友，虽然规模要小于 ResearchGate 和 Academia，但目前注册会员也达到250万之多 ... 科研之友和学者 网则是我国两个典型的科研社交网络。本文选取这4 个科研社交网络，从推荐项目、推荐策略、冷启动方案 和用户偏好学习4个方面进行对比。... 我国的科研之友有一个“同行专家”推荐服务，从 其提示语“根据您的个人信息推荐的专家”可以清楚 地知道该服务的作用，但笔者在多个不同的时间经多 次调整个人信息，推荐结果始终显示“没有符合条件的 专家记录”;“发现群组”“学术期刊”“科学基金”这3 个推荐项目也存在同样的问题。这说明科研之友的推 ...""

        From Google Translate: "ScholarMate, officially launched in 2007, although smaller in scale than ResearchGate and Academia, currently has 2.5 million registered members... ScholarMate and Scholat are two typical scientific research social networks in my country. This article selects these four scientific research social networks and compares them from four aspects: recommended projects, recommendation strategies, cold start solutions and user preference learning. ... Our country's ScholarMate has a "Peer Expert" recommendation service. From its prompt "Experts recommended based on your personal information" you can clearly understand the role of this service, but the author has experienced it many times at many different times. After adjusting personal information for this time, the recommendation results always show "No qualified expert records"; the same problem also exists in the three recommended projects of "Discovery Group", "Academic Journal" and "Science Fund". This shows that the recommendation of friends of scientific research...""

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ScholarMate (Chinese: 科研之友) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need assessment of whether new sources located help establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Cunard. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cunard. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the sources provided by User:Cunard establish notability. Marquisate (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.