Faculty Use of Author Identifiers and Researcher Networking Tools

Abstract

This cross-sectional survey focused on faculty use and knowledge of author identifiers and researcher networking systems, and professional use of social media, at a large state university. Results from 296 completed faculty surveys representing all disciplines (9.3% response rate) show low levels of awareness and variable resource preferences. The most utilized author identifier was ORCID while ResearchGate, LinkedIn, and Google Scholar were the top profiling systems. Faculty also reported some professional use of social media platforms. The survey data will be utilized to improve library services and develop intra-institutional collaborations in scholarly communication, research networking, and research impact.

Institutional Repositories and Academic Social Networks: Competition or Complement? A Study of Open Access Policy Compliance vs. ResearchGate Participation

“…Nature found that just under half of the more than 3,500 scientists and engineers they surveyed visit ResearchGate regularly (Van Noorden, 2014), while a recent survey of over 20,000 respondents by researchers at Utrecht University Library found that 61% who have published at least one paper use ResearchGate Matthews, 2016). Other measures of the proportion of researchers using ResearchGate range from 15% to 65% depending on the population studied (Campos & Valencia, 2015;Haustein et al, 2014;Laakso et al, 2017;Lupton, 2014;Madhusudhan, 2012;Mahajan, Singh, & Kumar, 2013;Meishar-Tal & Pieterse, 2017;Míguez-González, Puentes-Rivera, & Dafonte-Gómez, 2017;Mikki et al, 2015;Ortega, 2015;Singh, 2016;Tran & Lyon, 2017).…”

“…edu, which is preferred by researchers in the social sciences and especially the humanities Campos-Freire & Rúas-Araújo, 2016;Elsayed, 2015;Jamali et al, 2016;Matthews, 2016;Mikki et al, 2015;Nández & Borrego, 2013;Ortega, 2015;Thelwall & Kousha, 2015;Thelwall & Kousha, 2017;Van Noorden, 2014). Despite these disciplinary differences, however, ResearchGate is more heavily used by researchers overall than Academia.edu Campos-Freire & Rúas-Araújo, 2016;Elsayed, 2015;Jamali et al, 2016;Laakso et al, 2017;Matthews, 2016;Meishar-Tal & Pieterse, 2017;Míguez-González et al, 2017;Mikki et al, 2015;Ortega, 2015;Singh, 2016;Tran & Lyon, 2017;Van Noorden, 2014). Use of ResearchGate is notably higher than that of Academia.edu among senior researchers Matthews, 2016;Mikki et al, 2015).…”

“…Our study would help us understand whether ResearchGate was competing with our IR for faculty-authored content. It would also provide insights that could lead to improvements in our implementation of the OA Policy and greater success in recruiting faculty content.We chose to compare the faculty's OA Policy compliance with their participation in ResearchGate specifically-rather than Academia.edu or other sites-primarily because ResearchGate has been shown to be the most popular academic social network among scholars Campos-Freire & Rúas-Araújo, 2016;Elsayed, 2015;Jamali, Nicholas, & Herman, 2016;Matthews, 2016; MeisharTal & Pieterse, 2017;Mikki, Zygmuntowska, Gjesdal, & Al Ruwehy, 2015;Ortega, 2015;Singh, 2016;Tran & Lyon, 2017;Van Noorden, 2014). …”

“…Nature found that just under half of the more than 3,500 scientists and engineers they surveyed visit ResearchGate regularly (Van Noorden, 2014), while a recent survey of over 20,000 respondents by researchers at Utrecht University Library found that 61% who have published at least one paper use ResearchGate Matthews, 2016). Other measures of the proportion of researchers using ResearchGate range from 15% to 65% depending on the population studied (Campos & Valencia, 2015;Haustein et al, 2014;Laakso et al, 2017;Lupton, 2014;Madhusudhan, 2012;Mahajan, Singh, & Kumar, 2013;Meishar-Tal & Pieterse, 2017;Míguez-González, Puentes-Rivera, & Dafonte-Gómez, 2017;Mikki et al, 2015;Ortega, 2015;Singh, 2016;Tran & Lyon, 2017).A number of studies have reported that ResearchGate is relatively more popular among researchers in the sciences when compared with the academic social network Academia. edu, which is preferred by researchers in the social sciences and especially the humanities Campos-Freire & Rúas-Araújo, 2016;Elsayed, 2015;Jamali et al, 2016;Matthews, 2016;Mikki et al, 2015;Nández & Borrego, 2013;Ortega, 2015;Thelwall & Kousha, 2015;Thelwall & Kousha, 2017;Van Noorden, 2014 Míguez-González et al, 2017;Mikki et al, 2015;Ortega, 2015;Singh, 2016;Tran & Lyon, 2017;Van Noorden, 2014).…”

Whose Research is it Anyway? Academic Social Networks Versus Institutional Repositories

“…This would better reflect their true output than ASNs currently do, and reliability might be further improved by dedicating a staff position to monitoring the accuracy and validity of profiles on academic social networks. Tran and Lyon (2017) found that there was much confusion among faculty about the multiple profile systems that exist (both external and internal), and felt there was a role for the library in educating faculty about them, which is one possible resolution. At this point there are more questions than answers, and few solutions-but they are questions that we must begin to ask, and attempt to answer.…”