IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0193459.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Researchers’ participation in and motivations for engaging with research information management systems

Author

Listed:
  • Besiki Stvilia
  • Shuheng Wu
  • Dong Joon Lee

Abstract

Researchers’ participation in online RIMSs: This article examined how researchers participated in research information management systems (RIMSs), their motivations for participation, and their priorities for those motivations. Profile maintenance, question-answering, and endorsement activities were used to define three cumulatively increasing levels of participation: Readers, Record Managers, and Community Members. Junior researchers were more engaged in RIMSs than were senior researchers. Postdocs had significantly higher odds of endorsing other researchers for skills and being categorized as Community Members than did full and associate professors. Assistant professors were significantly more likely to be Record Managers than were members of any other seniority categories. Finally, researchers from the life sciences showed a significantly higher propensity for being Community Members than Readers and Record Managers when compared with researchers from engineering and the physical sciences, respectively. Researchers’ motivations to participate in RIMSs: When performing activities, researchers were motivated by the desire to share scholarship, feel competent, experience a sense of enjoyment, improve their status, and build ties with other members of the community. Moreover, when researchers performed activities that directly benefited other members of a RIMS, they assigned higher priorities to intrinsic motivations, such as perceived self-efficacy, enjoyment, and building community ties. Researchers at different stages of their academic careers and disciplines ranked some of the motivations for engaging with RIMSs differently. The general model of research participation in RIMSs; the relationships among RIMS activities; the motivation scales for activities; and the activity, seniority, and discipline-specific priorities for the motivations developed by this study provide the foundation for a framework for researcher participation in RIMSs. This framework can be used by RIMSs and institutional repositories to develop tools and design mechanisms to increase researchers’ engagement in RIMSs.

Suggested Citation

  • Besiki Stvilia & Shuheng Wu & Dong Joon Lee, 2018. "Researchers’ participation in and motivations for engaging with research information management systems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0193459
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193459
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193459
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193459&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0193459?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Besiki Stvilia & Michael B. Twidale & Linda C. Smith & Les Gasser, 2008. "Information quality work organization in wikipedia," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(6), pages 983-1001, April.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    4. Mike Thelwall & Pardeep Sud, 2016. "Mendeley readership counts: An investigation of temporal and disciplinary differences," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(12), pages 3036-3050, December.
    5. Dong Joon Lee & Besiki Stvilia, 2017. "Practices of research data curation in institutional repositories: A qualitative view from repository staff," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-44, March.
    6. Amalia Mas-Bleda & Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha & Isidro F. Aguillo, 2014. "Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 337-356, October.
    7. Besiki Stvilia & Charles C. Hinnant & Shuheng Wu & Adam Worrall & Dong Joon Lee & Kathleen Burnett & Gary Burnett & Michelle M. Kazmer & Paul F. Marty, 2015. "Research project tasks, data, and perceptions of data quality in a condensed matter physics community," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(2), pages 246-263, February.
    8. Oded Nov & Mor Naaman & Chen Ye, 2010. "Analysis of participation in an online photo-sharing community: A multidimensional perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(3), pages 555-566, March.
    9. Noriko Hara & Madelyn Rose Sanfilippo, 2017. "Analysis of roles in engaging contentious online discussions in science," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(8), pages 1953-1966, August.
    10. Jim Giles, 2005. "Internet encyclopaedias go head to head," Nature, Nature, vol. 438(7070), pages 900-901, December.
    11. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2017. "ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size, and impact," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(2), pages 468-479, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dong Joon Lee & Besiki Stvilia & Seungyeon Ha & Douglas Hahn, 2023. "The structure and priorities of researchers' scholarly profile maintenance activities: A case of institutional research information management system," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(2), pages 186-204, February.
    2. Stan Karanasios & Aljona Zorina, 2023. "From participation roles to socio‐emotional information roles: Insights from the closure of an online community," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 33-49, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Charles Ayoubi & Boris Thurm, 2023. "Knowledge diffusion and morality: Why do we freely share valuable information with Strangers?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 75-99, January.
    2. Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick & Mueller-Langer, Frank, 2014. "Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practised," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1621-1633.
    3. Nicolas Jullien, 2012. "What We Know About Wikipedia: A Review of the Literature Analyzing the Project(s)," Post-Print hal-00857208, HAL.
    4. Nora Hesse, 2015. "Students' Career Attitudes - How Entrepreneurial Are Prospective Scientists?," Working Papers on Innovation and Space 2015-03, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    5. Loris Gaio & Alessandro Rossi & Matthijs den Besten & Jean-Michel Dalle, 2009. "Coordination, Division of Labor, and Open Content Communities: Template Messages in Wiki-Based Collections," DISA Working Papers 0903, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 29 Jul 2009.
    6. Weiwei Yan & Qian Liu & Ruoyu Chen & Shengwei Yi, 2020. "Social networks formed by follower–followee relationships on academic social networking sites: an examination of corporation users," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2083-2101, September.
    7. Maria del García-de los Salmones & Angel Herrero & Patricia Martínez, 2021. "Determinants of Electronic Word-of-Mouth on Social Networking Sites About Negative News on CSR," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 583-597, July.
    8. Shane Greenstein & Grace Gu & Feng Zhu, 2021. "Ideology and Composition Among an Online Crowd: Evidence from Wikipedians," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 3067-3086, May.
    9. Lepori, Benedetto & Thelwall, Michael & Hoorani, Bareerah Hafeez, 2018. "Which US and European Higher Education Institutions are visible in ResearchGate and what affects their RG score?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 806-818.
    10. Arnaud Gorgeon & E. Burton Swanson, 2011. "Web 2.0 according to Wikipedia: Capturing an organizing vision," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(10), pages 1916-1932, October.
    11. Stan Karanasios & Aljona Zorina, 2023. "From participation roles to socio‐emotional information roles: Insights from the closure of an online community," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 33-49, January.
    12. Furman, Jeffrey L. & Jensen, Kyle & Murray, Fiona, 2012. "Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 276-290.
    13. Yang Chen, 2020. "An Investigation of the Influencing Factors of Chinese WeChat Users’ Environmental Information-Sharing Behavior Based on an Integrated Model of UGT, NAM, and TPB," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, March.
    14. Besiki Stvilia & Dong Joon Lee & Na‐eun Han, 2021. "“Striking out on your own”—A study of research information management problems on university campuses," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(8), pages 963-978, August.
    15. Francisco Díez-Martín & Alicia Blanco-González & Giorgia Miotto, 2022. "The impact of state legitimacy on entrepreneurial activity," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 935-955, June.
    16. Banshal, Sumit Kumar & Gupta, Solanki & Lathabai, Hiran H & Singh, Vivek Kumar, 2022. "Power Laws in altmetrics: An empirical analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    17. Tuba Bakici, 2020. "Comparison of crowdsourcing platforms from social-psychological and motivational perspectives," Post-Print hal-02966992, HAL.
    18. Weiwei Yan & Yin Zhang & Wendy Bromfield, 2018. "Analyzing the follower–followee ratio to determine user characteristics and institutional participation differences among research universities on ResearchGate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 299-316, April.
    19. Jessica Alzamora-Ruiz & Carlos Guerrero-Medina & Myriam Martínez-Fiestas & Jaime Serida-Nishimura, 2020. "Why People Participate in Collaborative Consumption: An Exploratory Study of Motivating Factors in a Latin American Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-25, March.
    20. Maria Andersson & Ola Eriksson & Chris Von Borgstede, 2012. "The Effects of Environmental Management Systems on Source Separation in the Work and Home Settings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-17, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0193459. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.