Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to detect and describe disciplinary differences in the users and use of several social networking sites by scientists. Design/methodology/approach – Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC) (Spanish National Research Council) researchers registered in the most currently relevant academic social network sites (Google Scholar Citations, Academia.edu, ResearchGate (RG) and Mendeley) were analysed. In total, 6,132 profiles were classified according the eight research areas of the CSIC. Findings – Results show that Academia.edu is massively populated by humanists and social scientists, while RG is popular among biologists. Disciplinary differences are observed across every platform. Thus, scientists from the humanities and social sciences and natural resources show a significant activity contacting other members. On the contrary, biologists are more passive using social tools. Originality/value – This is the first study that analyses the disciplinary perform...

[1]  Nirmali Chakraborty,et al.  Activities and Reasons for Using Social Networking Sites by Research Scholars in NEHU: A Study on Facebook and ResearchGate , 2012 .

[2]  José Luis Ortega,et al.  Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC's members , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[3]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? An analysis of mendeley readers , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[4]  Claire Creaser,et al.  Researchers' green open access practice: a cross-disciplinary analysis , 2013, J. Documentation.

[5]  Johan Bollen,et al.  A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact Measures , 2009, PloS one.

[6]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[7]  Richard Van Noorden.  Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network , 2014, Nature.

[8]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? , 2014, Scientometrics.

[9]  Ian Rowlands,et al.  Social media use in the research workflow , 2011, Inf. Serv. Use.

[10]  Kathrin M. Möslein,et al.  Towards Research Collaboration - a Taxonomy of Social Research Network Sites , 2010, AMCIS.

[11]  S. M. Zabed Ahmed,et al.  Students’ perceptions of academic use of social networking sites: a survey of university students in Bangladesh , 2012 .

[12]  B. Björk,et al.  Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009 , 2010, PloS one.

[13]  Bradley M. Hemminger,et al.  Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact , 2012, ArXiv.

[14]  Bradley M. Hemminger,et al.  Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web , 2010, First Monday.

[15]  Omar Almousa,et al.  Users' classification and usage-pattern identification in academic social networks , 2011, 2011 IEEE Jordan Conference on Applied Electrical Engineering and Computing Technologies (AEECT).

[16]  Juan E. Iglesias,et al.  Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields , 2006, Scientometrics.

[17]  Brian Kelly,et al.  Using social media to enhance your research activities , 2013 .

[18]  Daqing He,et al.  User participation in an academic social networking service: A survey of open group users on Mendeley , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[19]  Miriam C. Goldstein,et al.  An Introduction to Social Media for Scientists , 2013, PLoS biology.

[20]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services , 2013, PloS one.

[21]  Judit Bar-Ilan,et al.  Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community , 2014, Scientometrics.

[22]  Tibor Braun,et al.  Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicators , 1996, Scientometrics.

[23]  G. Veletsianos,et al.  Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship , 2012 .

[24]  Katy Jordan,et al.  Academics and their online networks: Exploring the role of academic social networking sites , 2014, First Monday.

[25]  José Luis Ortega,et al.  Science is all in the eye of the beholder: Keyword maps in Google scholar citations , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[26]  Jung Sun Oh,et al.  Groups in Academic Social Networking Services--An Exploration of Their Potential as a Platform for Multi-disciplinary Collaboration , 2011, 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Social Computing.

[27]  Arbana Kadriu,et al.  Discovering value in academic social networks: A case study in ResearchGate , 2013, Proceedings of the ITI 2013 35th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces.

[28]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication , 2014, Scientometrics.

[29]  Daqing He,et al.  Mendeley group as a new source of interdisciplinarity study: how do disciplines interact on mendeley? , 2013, JCDL '13.

[30]  M. Ivimey.  Annual report , 1958, IRE Transactions on Engineering Writing and Speech.

[31]  R. König,et al.  Academia Goes Facebook? The Potential of Social Network Sites in the Scholarly Realm , 2014 .

[32]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Academia.edu: Social network or Academic Network? , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..