Evaluating Academic Answer Quality: A Pilot Study on ResearchGate Q&amp;A

Li, Lei; He, Daqing; Zhang, Chengzhi

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39396-4_6

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The analysis of the participants' criteria for judging the quality of academic answers supported five of the nine categories presented by Li et al (2016), and a total of 15 criteria were identified here. Table I defines the criteria and cites previous studies in which each has been proposed.…”

Section: Results: Criteria For Judging the Quality Of Academic Answersmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…The coding scheme emerged directly from the responses, and the initially coded results were discussed and revised between two coders to reach agreement on the final criteria. The criteria identified from the participants' responses were then mapped onto a classification framework of criteria for judgments of quality collected from related literature on social media and academic content (Li et al, 2016). This mapping process aimed to identify any novel criteria for judging academic answer quality on ResearchGate Q&A and to guide the design of the second-stage survey.…”

Section: Survey Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous research has clearly indicated that quality is a subjective concept that depends on the user's unique cognition (Eppler, 2006). Moreover, different users employ diverse criteria to judge the quality of answers, which further leads to a low degree of the quality judgement agreement (Li et al, 2016).…”

Section: Indications For Designing Academic Social Qanda Platformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To understand how the quality of academic answers ought to be evaluated on ASNSs, it is critical to understand the criteria used by scholars to determine this (Li et al, 2015(Li et al, , 2016. We argue that judging answer quality on ASNSs has unique characteristics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Researchers' judgment criteria of high-quality answers on academic social Q&A platforms

Zhang

et al. 2020

OIR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThrough a two-stage survey, this paper examines how researchers judge the quality of answers on ResearchGate Q&A, an academic social networking site.Design/methodology/approachIn the first-stage survey, 15 researchers from Library and Information Science (LIS) judged the quality of 157 answers to 15 questions and reported the criteria that they had used. The content of their reports was analyzed, and the results were merged with relevant criteria from the literature to form the second-stage survey questionnaire. This questionnaire was then completed by researchers recognized as accomplished at identifying high-quality LIS answers on ResearchGate Q&A.FindingsMost of the identified quality criteria for academic answers—such as relevance, completeness, and verifiability—have previously been found applicable to generic answers. The authors also found other criteria, such as comprehensiveness, the answerer's scholarship, and value-added. Providing opinions was found to be the most important criterion, followed by completeness and value-added.Originality/valueThe findings here show the importance of studying the quality of answers on academic social Q&A platforms and reveal unique considerations for the design of such systems.

show abstract

Section: Results: Criteria For Judging the Quality Of Academic Answersmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Survey Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Indications For Designing Academic Social Qanda Platformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Researchers' judgment criteria of high-quality answers on academic social Q&A platforms

Zhang

et al. 2020

OIR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, one should check whether, for example, the editorial board of the journal properly retracted the article afterwards. Or in the case that one uses platforms such as ResearchGate, one must pay attention to whether the discussants support their claims with evidence (Jeng, DesAutels, He, & Li, 2017;Li, He, & Zhang, 2016).…”

Section: Proposed Solutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Not all the journals included in credible indices meet the ethical rules of COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME, and there may also be trustworthy journals excluded from these indices, which means they cannot be used as whitelists for trustworthy journals. Equally, the many methods suggested to determine trustworthiness are not reliable because they include questionable criteria. The question arises whether valid criteria for identifying an untrustworthy journal can be determined and whether other assessment procedures are necessary. Since 2017, the Masaryk University Campus Library has been developing a suitable evaluation method for journals. A list of 19 criteria based on those originally suggested by Beall, COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME were reduced to 10 objectively verifiable criteria following two workshops with librarians. An evaluation of 259 biomedical journals using both the list of 19 and then 10 criteria revealed that 74 journals may have been incorrectly assessed as untrustworthy using the longer list. The most common reason for failure to comply was in the provision of sufficient editorial information and declaration of article processing charges. However, our investigation revealed that no criteria can reliably identify predatory journals. Therefore, a complex evaluation is needed combining objectively verifiable criteria with analysis of a journal's content and knowledge of the journal's background.

show abstract

Effectively clustering researchers in scientific collaboration networks: case study on ResearchGate

Rodrigues

Song

Zárate

2021

Soc. Netw. Anal. Min.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluating Academic Answer Quality: A Pilot Study on ResearchGate Q&A

Cited by 4 publications

References 35 publications

Researchers' judgment criteria of high-quality answers on academic social Q&A platforms

Researchers' judgment criteria of high-quality answers on academic social Q&A platforms

Evaluation of untrustworthy journals: Transition from formal criteria to a complex view

Effectively clustering researchers in scientific collaboration networks: case study on ResearchGate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About