Changing communication on researchgate through interface updates

Informal scholarly communication across the Web is a growing component of the scholarly communication infrastructure. This study describes the effects of three different interfaces on these informal channels. Interface design has a widely studied effect on user behavior, and new users often encounter barriers during accessing social media tools. Using a mixed methods approach, we collected and grouped 413 posts across three distinct interfaces of ResearchGate's communication platform. Our results show that scholars were more polite in the initial group discussion interface but that user interface design did not change the core communication patterns of sharing information and opinions among scholars. The site also transitioned from one-to-many discussions to one-to-one posts, but new users were generally welcomed to the scholarly communications

Electronic Social Networks as Supporting Means of Educational Process in Higher Education Institutions

Given research describes experience of electronic social networks use in educational practices. It was determined that electronic social networks can be a powerful tool for support of educational process in higher education institutions, namely to support study of different disciplines. There are main advantages of electronic social networks use for education: universal accessibility and free of charge; possibility of instant messaging and multimedia data; user-friendly intuitive interface; ability to search data and information; availability of event scheduling, invitations, reminder settings; support for synchronous and asynchronous communication between network members; access from different devices. It is emphasized that one of the main advantages of electronic social networks is receipt of quick feedback and convenience of their tools and services. Nowadays, it is important to include network educational interaction in existing models of study organization. It is advisable to use electronic social networks to manage educational process in higher education institution. Efficiency of electronic social networks use depends on intensity and need for their use in educational system management for implementation of organizational, educational, psychological and pedagogical functions and ensuring universal communication with subjects of educational process. Expediency of electronic social networks use to carry out research work at university is described. Electronic social networks are convenient tool to conduct surveys and questionnaires, to create thematic groups for specific issue discussion. Also it is possible to interact with researchers from different countries, share experiences and disseminate research findings, invite those who wish to participate in various scientific activities using these networks

Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric: reflections and implications for practice

This paper presents a response to the paper ‘A critical look at the ResearchGate score as a measure of scientific reputation’. Following up on arguments presented by the authors, which argue that the ResearchGate score is irreproducible and dependent upon Journal Impact Factors, a small-scale exploratory analysis of ResearchGate scores was undertaken to examine correlations between ResearchGate score and profile metrics. The importance of the Journal Impact Factor in determining ResearchGate score is confirmed, and insights gained into the relationship. A model which significantly predicts ResearchGate score is described. The findings are discussed in terms of the three arguments outlined in the original paper, and in relation to academic practice

AWARENESS AND USE OF ACADEMIC SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES AMONG LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE PROFESSIONALS IN NORTH EASTERN REGION IN INDIA

A variety of Academic Social Networking (ASN) Platforms, Including ResearchGate, Academia.edu and Google Scholar, have gained popularity over the past decades. A common capability of many of these academic social networking websites is to provide an online repository to which users can upload and share research papers. Now 10 years since the launch of the three main platforms which currently lead the market (Academia.edu, ResearchGate, and Mendeley), it is timely to review how and why ASNS are used. Recently Microsoft Academic also. These sites allow uploading academic articles, abstracts, and links to published articles; track demand for published articles, and engage in professional interaction. This study investigates the nature of the use and the perceived utility of the Academic Social Networking Sites among the LIS Professionals in the North Eastern Region in India. This study reveals that Non Teaching Professionals have knowledge of ASNSs. Google Scholar and Academia are the most used ASNSs among LIS professionals. 77.5% of the LIS Professionals indicated their preference for uploading a full-text version of their publications and 52.42% accessed the relevant ASNS at least daily

Do ResearchGate Scores create ghost academic reputations?

[EN] The academic social network site ResearchGate (RG) has its own indicator, RG Score, for its members. The high profile nature of the site means that the RG Score may be used for recruitment, promotion and other tasks for which researchers are evaluated. In response, this study investigates whether it is reasonable to employ the RG Score as evidence of scholarly reputation. For this, three different author samples were investigated. An outlier sample includes 104 authors with high values. A Nobel sample comprises 73 Nobel winners from Medicine and Physiology, Chemistry, Physics and Economics (from 1975 to 2015). A longitudinal sample includes weekly data on 4 authors with different RG Scores. The results suggest that high RG Scores are built primarily from activity related to asking and answering questions in the site. In particular, it seems impossible to get a high RG Score solely through publications. Within RG it is possible to distinguish between (passive) academics that interact little in the site and active platform users, who can get high RG Scores through engaging with others inside the site (questions, answers, social networks with influential researchers). Thus, RG Scores should not be mistaken for academic reputation indicators.Alberto Martin-Martin enjoys a four-year doctoral fellowship (FPU2013/05863) granted by the Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura, y Deporte (Spain). Enrique Orduna-Malea holds a postdoctoral fellowship (PAID-10-14), from the Polytechnic University of Valencia (Spain).Orduña Malea, E.; Martín-Martín, A.; Thelwall, M.; Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2017). Do ResearchGate Scores create ghost academic reputations?. Scientometrics. 112(1):443-460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2396-9S4434601121Bosman, J. & Kramer, B. (2016). Innovations in scholarly communication—data of the global 2015–2016 survey. Available at: http://zenodo.org/record/49583 #. Accessed December 11, 2016.González-Díaz, C., Iglesias-García, M., & Codina, L. (2015). Presencia de las universidades españolas en las redes sociales digitales científicas: Caso de los estudios de comunicación. El profesional de la información, 24(5), 1699–2407.Goodwin, S., Jeng, W., & He, D. (2014). Changing communication on ResearchGate through interface updates. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1–4.Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431.Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Meckel, M. (2015). A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 765–775.Jiménez-Contreras, E., de Moya Anegón, F., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2003). The evolution of research activity in Spain: The impact of the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI). Research Policy, 32(1), 123–142.Jordan, K. (2014a). Academics’ awareness, perceptions and uses of social networking sites: Analysis of a social networking sites survey dataset (December 3, 2014). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2507318 . Accessed December 11, 2016.Jordan, K. (2014b). Academics and their online networks: Exploring the role of academic social networking sites. First Monday, 19(11). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i11.4937 . Accessed December 11, 2016.Jordan, K. (2015). Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric: reflections and implications for practice. Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web (ASCW’15), 30 June 2015, Oxford. Available at: http://ascw.know-center.tugraz.at/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ASCW15_jordan_response_kraker-lex.pdf . Accessed December 11, 2016.Kadriu, A. (2013). Discovering value in academic social networks: A case study in ResearchGate. Proceedings of the ITI 2013—35th Int. Conf. on Information Technology Interfaces Information Technology Interfaces, pp. 57–62.Kraker, P. & Lex, E. (2015). A critical look at the ResearchGate score as a measure of scientific reputation. Proceedings of the Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web workshop (ASCW’15), Web Science conference 2015. Available at: http://ascw.know-center.tugraz.at/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ASCW15_kraker-lex-a-critical-look-at-the-researchgate-score_v1-1.pdf . Accessed December 11, 2016.Li, L., He, D., Jeng, W., Goodwin, S. & Zhang, C. (2015). Answer quality characteristics and prediction on an academic Q&A Site: A case study on ResearchGate. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion, pp. 1453–1458.Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M. & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016). The counting house: measuring those who count. Presence of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics and Altmetrics in the Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley & Twitter. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.02412 . Accessed December 11, 2016.Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E. & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016). The role of ego in academic profile services: Comparing Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Mendeley, and ResearcherID. Researchgate, Mendeley, and Researcherid. The LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog. Available at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/03/04/academic-profile-services-many-mirrors-and-faces-for-a-single-ego . Accessed December 11, 2016.Matthews, D. (2016). Do academic social networks share academics’ interests?. Times Higher Education. Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/do-academic-social-networks-share-academics-interests . Accessed December 11, 2016.Memon, A. R. (2016). ResearchGate is no longer reliable: leniency towards ghost journals may decrease its impact on the scientific community. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 66(12), 1643–1647.Mikki, S., Zygmuntowska, M., Gjesdal, Ø. L. & Al Ruwehy, H. A. (2015). Digital presence of norwegian scholars on academic network sites-where and who are they?. Plos One 10(11). Available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142709 . Accessed December 11, 2016.Nicholas, D., Clark, D., & Herman, E. (2016). ResearchGate: Reputation uncovered. Learned Publishing, 29(3), 173–182.Orduna-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016). The next bibliometrics: ALMetrics (Author Level Metrics) and the multiple faces of author impact. El profesional de la información, 25(3), 485–496.Ortega, Jose L. (2015). Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC’s members. Journal of informetrics, 9(1), 39–49.Ortega, Jose L. (2016). Social network sites for scientists. Cambridge: Chandos.Ovadia, S. (2014). ResearchGate and Academia. edu: Academic social networks. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 33(3), 165–169.Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 876–889.Thelwall, M. & Kousha, K. (2017). ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size and impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(2), 468–479.Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126–129.Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S. et al. (2015). The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management. HEFCE. Available at: http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363 . Accessed December 11, 2016

Information exchange on an academic social networking site: A multidiscipline comparison on researchgate Q&A

The increasing popularity of academic social networking sites (ASNSs) requires studies on the usage of ASNSs among scholars and evaluations of the effectiveness of these ASNSs. However, it is unclear whether current ASNSs have fulfilled their design goal, as scholars' actual online interactions on these platforms remain unexplored. To fill the gap, this article presents a study based on data collected from ResearchGate. Adopting a mixed-method design by conducting qualitative content analysis and statistical analysis on 1,128 posts collected from ResearchGate Q&A, we examine how scholars exchange information and resources, and how their practices vary across three distinct disciplines: library and information services, history of art, and astrophysics. Our results show that the effect of a questioner's intention (i.e., seeking information or discussion) is greater than disciplinary factors in some circumstances. Across the three disciplines, responses to questions provide various resources, including experts' contact details, citations, links to Wikipedia, images, and so on. We further discuss several implications of the understanding of scholarly information exchange and the design of better academic social networking interfaces, which should stimulate scholarly interactions by minimizing confusion, improving the clarity of questions, and promoting scholarly content management

Participations and Communications of Myanmar Academicians on Research Gate among Differences Disciplines

The purpose of this paper is to know the participating and communication of different disciplines among Myanmar academicians in ResearchGate (RG). The data were manually collected by visiting the profile pages of all members who had an account with the Institution of Myanmar in RG. In total, 1035 RG members and 59 participants' communications were analyzed by using the statistic method—Kruskal-Wallis H test under the five disciplines. The results show that Engineering and Technology disciplines massively participated than other disciplines on ResearchGate, while Natural science disciplines are more in research items. Life Science and Medicine disciplines have the most scholarly communication, respectively. There is no RG metric significant in social science disciplines. But, different disciplines of Myanmar academicians show varying levels of interest in being involved in RG with different significance Keywords: Researchgate, Myanmar academicians, Interaction, academic, social networks, question and answer site. DOI: 10.7176/IKM/11-2-03 Publication date:March 31st 202