Limits...
Digital Presence of Norwegian Scholars on Academic Network Sites--Where and Who Are They?

Mikki S, Zygmuntowska M, Gjesdal ØL, Al Ruwehy HA - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: However, within Faculty of Humanities, Academia.edu is the preferred one.We find different bibliometric indicators to correlate strongly within individual platforms and across platforms.There is however less agreement between the traditional bibliometric and social activity indicators.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of Bergen Library, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

ABSTRACT
The use of academic profiling sites is becoming more common, and emerging technologies boost researchers' visibility and exchange of ideas. In our study we compared profiles at five different profiling sites. These five sites are ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID and ORCID. The data set is enriched by demographic information including age, gender, position and affiliation, which are provided by the national CRIS-system in Norway. We find that approximately 37% of researchers at the University of Bergen have at least one profile, the prevalence being highest (> 40%) for members at the Faculty of Psychology and the Faculty of Social Sciences. Across all disciplines, ResearchGate is the most widely used platform. However, within Faculty of Humanities, Academia.edu is the preferred one. Researchers are reluctant to maintain multiple profiles, and there is little overlap between different services. Age turns out to be a poor indicator for presence in the investigated profiling sites, women are underrepresented and professors together with PhD students are the most likely profile holders. We next investigated the correlation between bibliometric measures, such as publications and citations, and user activities, such as downloads and followers. We find different bibliometric indicators to correlate strongly within individual platforms and across platforms. There is however less agreement between the traditional bibliometric and social activity indicators.

Show MeSH
Distribution of profiles by position.Relative values are compared to total number of researchers within the same position. Double counting appears, when researchers have changed position during the investigated time period (2011–2014), for example from being a student to PhD student.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4643921&req=5

pone.0142709.g003: Distribution of profiles by position.Relative values are compared to total number of researchers within the same position. Double counting appears, when researchers have changed position during the investigated time period (2011–2014), for example from being a student to PhD student.

Mentions: Finally, we examined which positions the profile owners hold, see Fig 3. Professors are the largest group in absolute numbers (367), followed by PhD students (319). Relative to the total number of researchers in the distinct position categories, post docs (58%) and professors (57%) attend most frequently academic network sites, while students were less represented (9%). The presence of engineers with 54% is relatively high and confirms earlier findings by Ortega [7] and Mas-Bleda, Thelwall [9].


Digital Presence of Norwegian Scholars on Academic Network Sites--Where and Who Are They?

Mikki S, Zygmuntowska M, Gjesdal ØL, Al Ruwehy HA - PLoS ONE (2015)

Distribution of profiles by position.Relative values are compared to total number of researchers within the same position. Double counting appears, when researchers have changed position during the investigated time period (2011–2014), for example from being a student to PhD student.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4643921&req=5

pone.0142709.g003: Distribution of profiles by position.Relative values are compared to total number of researchers within the same position. Double counting appears, when researchers have changed position during the investigated time period (2011–2014), for example from being a student to PhD student.
Mentions: Finally, we examined which positions the profile owners hold, see Fig 3. Professors are the largest group in absolute numbers (367), followed by PhD students (319). Relative to the total number of researchers in the distinct position categories, post docs (58%) and professors (57%) attend most frequently academic network sites, while students were less represented (9%). The presence of engineers with 54% is relatively high and confirms earlier findings by Ortega [7] and Mas-Bleda, Thelwall [9].

Bottom Line: However, within Faculty of Humanities, Academia.edu is the preferred one.We find different bibliometric indicators to correlate strongly within individual platforms and across platforms.There is however less agreement between the traditional bibliometric and social activity indicators.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of Bergen Library, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

ABSTRACT
The use of academic profiling sites is becoming more common, and emerging technologies boost researchers' visibility and exchange of ideas. In our study we compared profiles at five different profiling sites. These five sites are ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID and ORCID. The data set is enriched by demographic information including age, gender, position and affiliation, which are provided by the national CRIS-system in Norway. We find that approximately 37% of researchers at the University of Bergen have at least one profile, the prevalence being highest (> 40%) for members at the Faculty of Psychology and the Faculty of Social Sciences. Across all disciplines, ResearchGate is the most widely used platform. However, within Faculty of Humanities, Academia.edu is the preferred one. Researchers are reluctant to maintain multiple profiles, and there is little overlap between different services. Age turns out to be a poor indicator for presence in the investigated profiling sites, women are underrepresented and professors together with PhD students are the most likely profile holders. We next investigated the correlation between bibliometric measures, such as publications and citations, and user activities, such as downloads and followers. We find different bibliometric indicators to correlate strongly within individual platforms and across platforms. There is however less agreement between the traditional bibliometric and social activity indicators.

Show MeSH