Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites

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 Científicas (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 performance of a same sample of researchers on a varied number of academic social sites, comparing their numbers across web sites. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Online Information Review Emerald Publishing

Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites

Online Information Review , Volume 39 (4): 17 – Aug 10, 2015

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/disciplinary-differences-in-the-use-of-academic-social-networking-tDVCYxo8sn
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
1468-4527
DOI
10.1108/OIR-03-2015-0093
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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 Científicas (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 performance of a same sample of researchers on a varied number of academic social sites, comparing their numbers across web sites.

Journal

Online Information ReviewEmerald Publishing

Published: Aug 10, 2015

There are no references for this article.