Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/emerald-publishing/disciplinary-differences-in-the-use-of-academic-social-networking-tDVCYxo8sn
References (35)
-
M. Thelwall, K. Kousha (2014)
Academia.edu: Social network or Academic Network?Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65
-
(2014)
Getting connected with other researchers on Mendeley is getting easier! -
B. Kelly (2013)
Using social media to enhance your research activities -
R. Mielke, John Sokolowski (1952)
Annual ReportMusic Educators Journal, 61
-
Ehsan Mohammadi, M. Thelwall (2014)
Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flowsJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65
-
Jason Priem, Heather Piwowar, B. Hemminger (2012)
Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impactArXiv, abs/1203.4745
-
J. Ortega, Isidro Aguillo (2012)
Science is all in the eye of the beholder: Keyword maps in Google scholar citationsJ. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 63
-
Jason Priem, B. Hemminger (2010)
Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social WebFirst Monday, 15
-
M. Nentwich, R. König (2014)
Academia Goes Facebook? The Potential of Social Network Sites in the Scholarly Realm -
J. Oh, Wei Jeng (2011)
Groups in Academic Social Networking Services--An Exploration of Their Potential as a Platform for Multi-disciplinary Collaboration2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Social Computing
-
J. Bollen, H. Sompel, A. Hagberg, Ryan Chute (2009)
A Principal Component Analysis of 39 Scientific Impact MeasuresPLoS ONE, 4
-
D. Nicholas, I. Rowlands (2011)
Social media use in the research workflowLearned Publishing, 24
-
B. Björk, Patrik Welling, Mikael Laakso, Péter Majlender, Turid Hedlund, Guðni Guðnason (2010)
Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009PLoS ONE, 5
-
G. Veletsianos, Royce Kimmons (2012)
Assumptions and challenges of open scholarshipThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13
-
Angelika Bullinger-Hoffmann, S. Hallerstede, Uta Renken, Jens-Hendrik Soeldner, Kathrin Möslein (2010)
Towards Research Collaboration - a Taxonomy of Social Research Network Sites -
Jiepu Jiang, Chaoqun Ni, Daqing He, Wei Jeng (2013)
Mendeley group as a new source of interdisciplinarity study: how do disciplines interact on mendeley? -
I. Jahan, S. Ahmed (2012)
Students’ perceptions of academic use of social networking sites: a survey of university students in BangladeshInformation Development, 28
-
A. Schubert, T. Braun (1996)
Cross-field normalization of scientometric indicatorsScientometrics, 36
-
M. Thelwall, Nabeil Maflahi (2015)
Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? An analysis of mendeley readersJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66
-
A. Kadriu (2013)
Discovering value in academic social networks: A case study in ResearchGateProceedings of the ITI 2013 35th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces
-
Amalia Más-Bleda, M. Thelwall, K. Kousha, Isidro Aguillo (2014)
Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web?Scientometrics, 101
-
Richard Noorden (2014)
Online collaboration: Scientists and the social networkNature, 512
-
(2015)
Scimago Institutions Rankings -
O. Almousa (2011)
Users' classification and usage-pattern identification in academic social networks2011 IEEE Jordan Conference on Applied Electrical Engineering and Computing Technologies (AEECT)
-
K. Holmberg, M. Thelwall (2014)
Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communicationScientometrics, 101
-
S. Haustein, Isabella Peters, J. Bar-Ilan, Jason Priem, Hadas Shema, Jens Terliesner (2013)
Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric communityScientometrics, 101
-
M. Thelwall, S. Haustein, V. Larivière, Cassidy Sugimoto (2013)
Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web ServicesPLoS ONE, 8
-
Wei Jeng, Daqing He, Jiepu Jiang (2014)
User participation in an academic social networking service: A survey of open group users on MendeleyJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66
-
J. Ortega (2015)
Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC's membersJ. Informetrics, 9
-
Valérie Spezi, J. Fry, Claire Creaser, S. Probets, S. White (2013)
Researchers' green open access practice: a cross-disciplinary analysisJ. Documentation, 69
-
H. Bik, Miriam Goldstein (2013)
An Introduction to Social Media for ScientistsPLoS Biology, 11
-
(2014)
Main page -
Katy Jordan (2014)
Academics and their online networks: Exploring the role of academic social networking sitesFirst Monday, 19
-
Nirmal Chakraborty (2012)
Activities and Reasons for Using Social Networking Sites by Research Scholars in NEHU: A Study on Facebook and ResearchGate -
J. Iglesias, C. Pecharromán (2006)
Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fieldsScientometrics, 73
- 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 Review – Emerald Publishing
Published: Aug 10, 2015