Here [1] is an interesting blog post from the London School of Economics and Politics on the reverse engineering the ResearchGate score. It argues that there are several problems with it, and places the findings in the wider context of research metrics (including some links to other interesting reports).
[1] http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/12/09/the-researchgat...
There is actually a lot of research providing good evidence why imposing measures for scientific output does not not produce the desired effects, as this blog post argues [1]. Bottom line: "But could it be … could it possibly be … that the best way to get good research and publications out of scholars is to hire good people, pay them the going rate and tell them to do the job to the best of their ability?"
[1] https://svpow.com/2017/03/17/every-attempt-to-manage-academia-makes-it-w...
This paper (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13658816.2015.1130831) has a couple of interesting facts for everyone working in GIScience / Geoinformatics, and for us in particular. No matter how you stand on scientometric / bibliographic analysis, and whether you hate impact factors or not, it's good to know when you do well in them.
