IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/elmark/v27y2017i2d10.1007_s12525-016-0242-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Mikael Laakso

    (Hanken School of Economics)

  • Juho Lindman

    (Hanken School of Economics)

  • Cenyu Shen

    (Hanken School of Economics)

  • Linus Nyman

    (Hanken School of Economics)

  • Bo-Christer Björk

    (Hanken School of Economics)

Abstract

A recent disruption in academic publishing are Academic Social Networks (ASN), i.e. web platforms such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu that have provided new ways for researchers to disseminate, search for, and retrieve research articles. ASNs are still a grey area in terms of implications for involved stakeholders, and research on them has so far been scarce. In an effort to map out factors related to ASN use this article provides a multi-method case study of one business school (Hanken School of Economics, Finland) that incorporates 1) a bibliometric analysis on the full-text availability of research output on ASNs for research published 2012–2014 by Hanken affiliated authors, 2) semi-structured interviews with faculty active in publishing in order to gain insight into motivations for use and use patterns, and 3) a survey distributed to all research-active faculty and doctoral students in order to gain a wider perspective on ASN use. ASNs have for many become the primary way to provide access to one’s research output, outpacing all other types of online locations such as personal websites and repositories. Based on the case study findings, earlier research, and recent industry developments, the article concludes with a discussion about the implications that the current trajectory of ASN use has on major stakeholders in academic publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikael Laakso & Juho Lindman & Cenyu Shen & Linus Nyman & Bo-Christer Björk, 2017. "Research output availability on academic social networks: implications for stakeholders in academic publishing," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 125-133, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:elmark:v:27:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s12525-016-0242-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s12525-016-0242-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12525-016-0242-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12525-016-0242-1?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2014. "Academia.edu: Social network or Academic Network?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(4), pages 721-731, April.
    2. Mikael Laakso, 2014. "Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 475-494, May.
    3. Bo-Christer Björk & Mikael Laakso & Patrik Welling & Patrik Paetau, 2014. "Anatomy of green open access," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(2), pages 237-250, February.
    4. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2015. "ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(5), pages 876-889, May.
    5. Jihyun Kim, 2010. "Faculty self-archiving: Motivations and barriers," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(9), pages 1909-1922, September.
    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. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2017. "ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 1125-1131, August.
    2. Mikael Laakso & Andrea Polonioli, 2018. "Open access in ethics research: an analysis of open access availability and author self-archiving behaviour in light of journal copyright restrictions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 291-317, July.
    3. Diego Ponte & Bozena I. Mierzejewska & Stefan Klein, 2017. "The transformation of the academic publishing market: multiple perspectives on innovation," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 97-100, May.
    4. Li Yan & Wang Zhiping, 2023. "Mapping the Literature on Academic Publishing: A Bibliometric Analysis on WOS," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, March.
    5. Li Zhang & Erin Watson, 2018. "The prevalence of green and grey open access: Where do physical science researchers archive their publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 2021-2035, December.
    6. Daniela Filippo & Jorge Mañana-Rodríguez, 2020. "Open access initiatives in European universities: analysis of their implementation and the visibility of publications in the YERUN network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2667-2694, December.
    7. Daniela Filippo & Jorge Mañana-Rodriguez, 2022. "The practical implementation of open access policies and mandates in Spanish public universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7147-7167, December.
    8. Roger Clarke, 2020. "Researcher perspectives in Electronic Markets," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(1), pages 15-27, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Mohamed Boufarss & Mikael Laakso, 2020. "Open Sesame? Open access priorities, incentives, and policies among higher education institutions in the United Arab Emirates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1553-1577, August.
    11. 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.
    12. Angel Meseguer-Martinez & Alejandro Ros-Galvez & Alfonso Rosa-Garcia & Jose Antonio Catalan-Alarcon, 2019. "Online video impact of world class universities," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(3), pages 519-532, September.
    13. 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.

    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. Julie Baldwin & Stephen Pinfield, 2018. "The UK Scholarly Communication Licence: Attempting to Cut through the Gordian Knot of the Complexities of Funder Mandates, Publisher Embargoes and Researcher Caution in Achieving Open Access," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-28, July.
    2. Hamid R. Jamali, 2017. "Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 241-254, July.
    3. Hajar Sotudeh & Zahra Ghasempour & Maryam Yaghtin, 2015. "The citation advantage of author-pays model: the case of Springer and Elsevier OA journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(2), pages 581-608, August.
    4. Yan, Weiwei & Zhang, Yin, 2018. "Research universities on the ResearchGate social networking site: An examination of institutional differences, research activity level, and social networks formed," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 385-400.
    5. Mojisola Erdt & Aarthy Nagarajan & Sei-Ching Joanna Sin & Yin-Leng Theng, 2016. "Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1117-1166, November.
    6. Mario Pagliaro, 2021. "Did You Ask for Citations? An Insight into Preprint Citations en route to Open Science," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-10, June.
    7. Wenqiang Fan, 2015. "Contribution of the institutional repositories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to the webometric indicators of their home institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1889-1909, December.
    8. Laura Bowering Mullen, 2024. "Open Access, Scholarly Communication, and Open Science in Psychology: An Overview for Researchers," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(1_suppl), pages 21582440231, April.
    9. Sandra Miguel & Ely Francina Tannuri de Oliveira & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2016. "Scientific Production on Open Access: A Worldwide Bibliometric Analysis in the Academic and Scientific Context," Publications, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-15, January.
    10. Mojisola Erdt & Htet Htet Aung & Ashley Sara Aw & Charlie Rapple & Yin-Leng Theng, 2017. "Analysing researchers’ outreach efforts and the association with publication metrics: A case study of Kudos," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-25, August.
    11. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Author-level metrics in the new academic profile platforms: The online behaviour of the Bibliometrics community," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 494-509.
    12. Bo-Christer Björk, 2017. "Scholarly journal publishing in transition- from restricted to open access," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(2), pages 101-109, May.
    13. 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.
    14. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2017. "ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 1125-1131, August.
    15. Weiwei Yan & Xin Wen & Yin Zhang & Sonali Kudva & Qian Liu, 2023. "The dynamics of Q&A in academic social networking sites: insights from participants, interaction network, response time, and discipline differences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1895-1922, March.
    16. J. Israel Martínez-López & Samantha Barrón-González & Alejandro Martínez López, 2019. "Which Are the Tools Available for Scholars? A Review of Assisting Software for Authors during Peer Reviewing Process," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-28, September.
    17. Zhang, Ning & He, Guangye & Shi, Dongbo & Zhao, Zhenyue & Li, Jiang, 2022. "Does a gender-neutral name associate with the research impact of a scientist?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    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. Ying Guo & Xiantao Xiao, 2022. "Author-level altmetrics for the evaluation of Chinese scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 973-990, February.
    20. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Digital multimedia tools, research impact, stated and revealed preferences: a rejoinder on the issue of video abstracts," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 543-551, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Academic social networks; Academia.edu; ResearchGate; Open access;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I2 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education
    • L5 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy

    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:spr:elmark:v:27:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s12525-016-0242-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.