Research output availability on academic social networks: implications for stakeholders in academic publishing

null, null; Lindman, Juho; Shen, Cenyu; Nyman, Linus; Björk, Bo‐Christer

doi:10.1007/s12525-016-0242-1

Cited by 54 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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). Use of ResearchGate is notably higher than that of Academia.edu among senior researchers Matthews, 2016;Mikki et al, 2015).The ability to upload and share the full-text of publications is a feature valued by users of ResearchGate and similar academic social networks (Campos-Freire & Rúas-Araújo, 2016;Corvello, Genovese, & Verteramo, 2014;Elsayed, 2015;Laakso et al, 2017;Marra, 2015;Matthews, 2016;Nicholas et al, 2015;Tenopir et al, 2016;Van Noorden, 2014;Wu, Stvilia, & Lee, 2016). This contributes to ResearchGate being a significant source of freely available scholarly content.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Lovett

Rathemacher

Boukari

et al. 2017

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONThe popularity of academic social networks like ResearchGate and Academia.edu indicates that scholars want to share their work, yet for universities with open access (OA) policies, these sites may be competing with institutional repositories (IRs) for content. This article seeks to reveal researcher practices, attitudes, and motivations around uploading their work to ResearchGate and complying with an institutional OA Policy through a study of faculty at the University of Rhode Island (URI). METHODS We conducted a population study to examine the participation by 558 full-time URI faculty members in the OA Policy and ResearchGate followed by a survey of 728 full-time URI faculty members about their participation in the two services. DISCUSSION The majority of URI faculty do not participate in the OA Policy or use ResearchGate. Authors' primary motivations for participation are sharing their work more broadly and increasing its visibility and impact. Faculty who participate in ResearchGate are more likely to participate in the OA Policy, and vice versa. The fact that the OA Policy targets the author manuscript and not the final published article constitutes a significant barrier to participation. CONCLUSION Librarians should not view academic social networks as a threat to open access. Authors' strong preference for sharing the final, published version of their articles provides support for calls to hasten the transition to a Gold OA publishing system. Misunderstandings about the OA Policy and copyright indicate a need for librarians to conduct greater education and outreach to authors about options for legally sharing articles. Received: 01/26/2017 Accepted: 06/20/2017 Correspondence: Andrée Rathemacher, 269 Library, University Libraries, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881, USA, andree@uri.edu 2. Throughout the survey, faculty reported a strong aversion to sharing the author manuscript version of their articles. This was the most significant barrier to participating in the OA Policy. This finding, if generalizable, should inform current discussions among OA advocates about the respective roles going forward of Green OA achieved through depositing author manuscripts in institutional repositories and Gold OA achieved at the point of publication. RESEARCH3. Our survey revealed a range of misunderstandings about the IR, OA policies, and copyright. For example, many respondents believe that the legality of posting one's articles in both the IR and ResearchGate depends on publisher policy and the version of the article posted. In fact, permissions-based OA policies make it legal to post author manuscripts in the IR regardless of publisher policies, and many subscriptionaccess journals prohibit depositing any version of an article to commercial sites like ResearchGate. These misunderstandings indicate a need for librarians to conduct greater education and outreach to faculty around their options for legally sharing published articles. INTRODUCTIONFrom electronic journals and repositories to soci...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Lovett

Rathemacher

Boukari

et al. 2017

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Laakso and his colleagues (Laakso et al 2017) explore acceptance and use of one of the most disruptive elements of scientific publishing: Academic Social Networks (ASN). By using an empirical approach based on bibliometric analysis, interviews and surveys, the authors state that ASNs are becoming a major way for researchers to market their own work even in the face of copyright breaches.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The transformation of the academic publishing market: multiple perspectives on innovation

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The literature on open access publishing pointed to the critical impacts and implications of the gold open access model of publishing and the trends in the business, the key aspects of which were explored by authors who have published several articles on the subject (Laasko et al, 2017;Lewis, 2012;Ren, 2015;Ware & Mabe, 2015). Indeed, there are impacts on all major stakeholders, as discussed below.…”

Section: Impacts Of Gold Open Access Publishingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Academic social networks Platforms such as Academia.edu and ResearchGate can be viewed as disrupting academic publishing by providing new ways for disseminating, searching, and retrieving research content, and are becoming a major way of providing access to individual author's articles (Laasko et al, 2017), particularly for authors in small developing countries. However, Laasko and colleagues (2017) foresee that publishers will exert influence to restrict distribution if the impact reduces income as happened in the case of Elsevier, which was awarded damages from Sci-Hub for copyright infringement (Schiermeier, 2017).…”

Section: Current Trends In Open Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2017

TIM Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Except where otherwise noted, all content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. The PDF version is created withScribus, an open source desktop publishing program. OverviewThe Technology Innovation Management Review (TIM Review) provides insights about the issues and emerging trends relevant to launching and growing technology businesses. The TIM Review focuses on the theories, strategies, and tools that help small and large technology companies succeed.Our readers are looking for practical ideas they can apply within their own organizations. The TIM Review brings together diverse viewpoints -from academics, entrepreneurs, companies of all sizes, the public sector, the community sector, and others -to bridge the gap between theory and practice. In particular, we focus on the topics of technology and global entrepreneurship in small and large companies.We welcome input from readers into upcoming themes. Please visit timreview.ca to suggest themes and nominate authors and guest editors. ContributeContribute to the TIM Review in the following ways:• Read and comment on articles.• Review the upcoming themes and tell us what topics you would like to see covered.• Write an article for a future issue; see the author guidelines and editorial process for details.• Recommend colleagues as authors or guest editors.• Give feedback on the website or any other aspect of this publication.• Sponsor or advertise in the TIM Review.• Tell a friend or colleague about the TIM Review.Please contact the Editor if you have any questions or comments: timreview.ca/contact About TIMThe TIM Review has international contributors and readers, and it is published in association with the Technology Innovation Management program (TIM; timprogram.ca), an international graduate program at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. Technology Innovation Management ReviewNovember 2017 (Volume 7, Issue 11) 3 timreview.caThe fourth article is by Tuomo Eskelinen, Teemu Räsänen, Ulla Santti, Ari Happonen, and Miika Kajanus, who used action research methods to discover new business opportunities for an environmental monitoring service relying on open data. They applied a four-stage innovation process for industry, which included context definition, idea generation, and selection, and produced multi-criteria decision support (MCDS) data to help design a new business model. Their business model creation process can help businesses find new ideas based on open data, turn them into business models, and then improve those models using a participative approach.Finally, Haven Allahar analyzes the role of open access in the domain of academic publishing from the perspective of disruptive innovation. Following a characterization of the traditional journal publishing system, Allahar describes the evolving phenomenon of open access models on journal publishing, the nature and extent of open access as a disruptive innovation, and the implications for key stakeholders.In December, we feature articles based on papers presented at the 2017 ISPIM ...

show abstract

Research output availability on academic social networks: implications for stakeholders in academic publishing

Cited by 54 publications

References 19 publications

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

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

The transformation of the academic publishing market: multiple perspectives on innovation

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About