Blog Post

Can ResearchGate really be the Facebook of science?

Stay on Top of Enterprise Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

Ijad Madisch, the CEO and co-founder of Berlin startup ResearchGate, likes to work with hard evidence.

Perhaps it’s no surprise for the Harvard-trained virologist, who traded in a promising medical research career to launch the social network for scientists. But still, in a world where the impact of social networks is usually measured by how many news headlines they can generate, he prefers success stories that have a more direct impact.

Take the example of Rafael Luque, a chemistry professor at the University of Cordoba in Spain. Luque found a collaborator on ResearchGate that he’d have never come across in the real world: a post-graduate student in the Philippines called Rick Arneil Aracon. After using the site to connect and discuss some ideas, together they discovered a novel new method of helping to make biofuels from the leftovers of corn cobs.

The technology is still in development, but it’s evidence of real impact for the site — and a hint at the substantial change that’s happening in the way scientists can work online.

“When we started, people told me you have to get all of the big professors on board,” says Madisch, as we sit in the company’s Berlin headquarters.

His answer was precisely the opposite.

“No,” he says. “If you get all the people who will be professors then it will succeed. We have people who joined four years ago who now say they use ResearchGate for communication in their lab: that’s what I want.”

It’s been a big few weeks for the network, which recently announced that it had broken the two million user barrier. That marks a serious milestone, even if it seems small in comparison to the billion citizens of the United States of Facebook (s FB).

It may be dwarfed by Zuckerberg’s empire, but Madisch and his team — including former Facebooker Matt Cohler, who sits on the company’s board — think that they can punch way above their weight with a much smaller community. Why? Because their couple million users are all professional scientists and academics who are all trying to change the world.

So what’s next?

“The next big thing,” says Madisch, “is reputation.”

“We want to try out a community review system: I’ve had it in mind for years now, and I want to see if people will accept this way of reviewing data and sharing data.”

In the end, he wants ResearchGate to be a place where researchers publish their papers, make their full results accessible and gather reputation. That in turn, he thinks, could make the site’s ratings a reference for outside funders, governments and the science community at large.

“My goal is that at one point I’ll talk to the larger funding agencies, and if they are accepting our score at some point, every scientist can think ‘should I publish in Nature and pay a lot of money for it and only get reputation for part of the data I created’ or ‘should I publish it all on ResearchGate and get reputation for everything?’.”

Most German startups are ‘shit’

It’s a big ambition, and one that goes way beyond the scope of many German internet startups — many of whom are happy to coin it in with clones or copycat services.

This is a problem, says Madisch, and he doesn’t mince his words: whether or not unoriginality is ethical, he believes the fact that so German startups are built by MBAs rather than passionate experts is dragging the country’s web scene down.

“Most of it is shit,” he says. “If you look at the people who are founding companies in Germany, you have many people who come from the business world, and they think as business guys: What models exist? What can I do efficiently the same way without changing a lot? If you look at other countries, especially the U.S. or England, the people are coming from the industries: they know what they’re doing.”

He feels particular kinship with the other exciting consumer-focused startups graduating out of Berlin’s over-hip scene: the likes of Soundcloud and Gidsy. They are building services that do new things, not copying the examples set elsewhere — and they have a lot to share with each other.

“We talk to each other,” he says of the cadre of CEOs now operating in the city. “We talk and we meet regularly for coffee or dinner, we’re somehow in constant conversation if we need something or if we think we should talk at some point.”

Still, ResearchGate has benefited from the clone culture, albeit indirectly: it hired a significant number of staff members from StudiVZ, the Facebook copycat that imploded spectacularly earlier this year. Their loss is his gain, and it’s perhaps a sign of what might come after a generation of engineers graduate from building copies and start branching out on their own.

But while a big vision may be unusual for Berlin, ResearchGate is not alone in its ambitions to upturn the stuffy and defensive world of scientific publishing.

Mendeley, another scientific startup with German origins, is also trying to use data to disrupt the existing academic structures.

However, the fact that there are two major rivals in Europe both around the same size is not a concern to Madisch.

“I’m more afraid of the ones coming than the ones who exist already,” he says. “And I’m more concerned about what the publishers will do in the future than really having competitors in the online world.”

8 Responses to “Can ResearchGate really be the Facebook of science?”

  1. Ethan Perlstein

    Comment threads get hijacked or sidetracked — shit happens. I have a ghost profile on ResearchGate. I think it’s an interesting idea but it doesn’t add value for me.

  2. Socrates Logos

    I agree with faith uckun. I had an account a while ago, but deleted it. I think this is a dysfunctional app with a quite dictatoric structure. I had really bad experience with this app. First of all, it does not work at all. I am interested in synthetic biology and posted there on regular basis. However, the social network is dysfunctional, and I never experienced real discussions there. This is coherent with published numbers about the activity on this page. “The user numbers (1.9 Million as of August 12, 2012) contrast to the number of followers for the top topics such as “Science, Engineering and Technology” that have less than 50,000 followers.[10] The official ResearchGate Twitter profile has less than 4000 followers.[11] The number of active users (20% active at least once a month) reported by company founder Ijad Madisch approximately equal the growth rate.”
    I am quite interested in social networking in Science (see my recent blog in Nature ).
    I have good experience even on standard networks such as G+, FB or Twitter. In conclusion, research gate do not work at all. It do not solve any problem. Moreover, I experienced some very provocative actions form their administrator. I am a quite experienced researcher and actually holding a PhD and they just moved a synthetic biology post in the synthetic biology group to another group. I contacted them by email and asked them to move back. They denied to do so and just ignored my scientific judgement. This kind of behavior is quite unacceptable. This in addition to the lack of functionality as a social network led to, that I deleted my account. I personally can only advice people to stay away from this app. Science is about free communication and not dictatorship.

  3. fatih uckun

    IS RESEARCH GATE A SCAM. I am a believer of free scientific exchange and recently joined this forum. As an NIH-funded researcher who serves on NIH peer review panels and a full professor at the University of Southern California (, I thought I could help junior researchers and provide some guidance. I am very disappointed by what I have witnessed so far.

    The founder is neither a PhD nor a virologist. Most researchers participating in discussions at the Research Gate site do not have the foundation or educational background to have a professional opinion. Research Gate is using a nontransparent, nonscientific method for scoring researchers. Persons with no peer reviewed publications in high impact journals are given very high scores only because they participate in discussions online. I recently asked Research Gate for the qualifications of their staff members involved in scoring and they quickly deleted my question. Then they sent me an e-mail asking that I call their CEO Ijad Madisch in person to discuss my concerns. Can you believe it. They simply deleted my questions about what method they use to score researchers which I asked when noticed gross errors and inconsistencies.