Digital presence of norwegian scholars on academic network sites-where and who are they?

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 11, 2015, Pages

  Mikki, Susanne ^a   Zygmuntowska, Marta ^a   Gjesdal, Yvind Liland ^a   Ruwehy, Hemed Ali Al ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GENDER; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HUMANITIES; MALE; NORWAY; PHD STUDENT; PREVALENCE; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIST; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIOLOGY; UNIVERSITY; ADULT; AGED; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; BIBLIOMETRICS; INTERNET; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SCHOOL; MIDDLE AGED; PERSONNEL; TRENDS;

ADULT; AGED; BIBLIOMETRICS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; FACULTY, MEDICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; PUBLICATIONS; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84958811339     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142709     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Utrecht University Library. Research Impact & Visibility: Researcher profiles 2015. Available: http://libguides.library.uu.nl/researchimpact/profiles. Accessed 25 June 2015.
2. Ortega JL. Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC's members. Journal of Informetrics. 2015; 9(1):39-49. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.11.004
3. Garfield E. Citation Indexes for Science-New dimension in documentation through association of ideas Science. 1955; 122(3159):108-11. PMID: 14385826
4. Ward J, Bejarano W, Dudás A. Scholarly social media profiles and libraries: A review. Liber Quarterly. 2015; 22. Available: http://liber.library.uu.nl/index.php/lq/article/view/9958/10504.
5. Bik HM, Goldstein MC. An Introduction to Social Media for Scientists. PLoS biology. 2013; 11(4). doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535
6. Nentwich M, König R. Academia Goes Facebook? The Potential of Social Network Sites in the Scholarly Realm. 2014. In: Opening science: the evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing. Cham: Springer; [107-24]. Available: http://book. openingscience.org/tools/academia-goes-facebook.html.
7. Ortega JL. How is an academic social site populated? A demographic study of Google Scholar Citations population. Scientometrics. 2015:1-18. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1593-7
8. Haustein S, Peters I, Bar-Ilan J, Priem J, Shema H, Terliesner J. Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics. 2014; 101(2):1145-63. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1221-3
9. Mas-Bleda A, Thelwall M, Kousha K, Aguillo IF. Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? Scientometrics. 2014; 101(1):337-56. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1345-0
10. Rowlands I, Nicholas D, Russell B, Canty N, Watkinson A. Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing. 2011; 24(3):183-95. doi: 10.1087/20110306
11. Van Noorden R. Scientists and the social network. Nature. 2014; 512(7513):126-9. doi: 10.1038/512126a.
12. Menendez M, de Angeli A, Menestrina Z. Exploring the virtual space of academia. From Research to Practice in the Design of Cooperative Systems: Results and Open Challenges: Springer; 2012. p. 49-63.
13. Thelwall M, Kousha K. Academia. edu: social network or academic network? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2014; 65(4):721-31. doi: 10.1002/asi.23038
14. Priem J. Altmetrics. In: Cronin B, Sugimoto CR, editors. Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact: MIT Press; 2014.
15. Priem J, Taraborelli D, Groth P, Neylon C. Altmetrics: A manifesto 2010. Available: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto.
16. Haustein S. Scientific Interactions and Research Evaluation: From Bibliometrics to Altmetrics 2015. Available: https://zenodo.org/record/17968/files/keynote3.pdf.
17. Priem J, Piwowar HA, Hemminger BM. Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. arXiv preprint arXiv:12034745., 2012
18. Piwowar H. Altmetrics: Value all research products. Nature. 2013; 493(7431):159-. doi: 10.1038/493159a PMID: 23302843
19. Bar-Ilan J. Evaluating the individual researcher-adding an altmetric perspective. Research trends. 2014; 37. Available: http://www.researchtrends.com/issue-37-june-2014/evaluating-the-individualresearcher/.
20. Ortega JL. Influence of co-authorship networks in the research impact: Ego network analyses from Microsoft Academic Search. Journal of Informetrics. 2014; 8(3):728-37. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2014.07.001
21. Haustein S, Costas R, Larivière V. Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: the effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PloS one. 2015; 10(3):e0120495. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120495 PMID: 25780916
22. Costas R, Zahedi Z, Wouters P. Do "altmetrics" correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2014. doi: 10.1002/asi.23309
23. Haustein S, Peters I, Sugimoto CR, Thelwall M, Larivière V. Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2014; 65(4):656-69. doi: 10.1002/asi.23101
24. Torres-Salinas D, Cabezas-Clavijo A, Jimenez-Contreras E. Altmetrics: New Indicators for Scientific Communication in Web 2.0. arXiv preprint arXiv:13066595., 2013.
25. CRIStin. Current Research Information System in Norway Ministry of Education and Research. Available: http://www.cristin.no/en/index.html.
26. Universitets-og høgskolerådet. Vekt på forskning: nytt system for dokumentasjon av vitenskapelig publisering: innstilling fra faglig og teknisk utvalg til UHR. Oslo2004. Available: http://www.uhr.no/documents/Vektpforskningsluttrapport.pdf.
27. Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse. Evaluering af den norske publiceringsindikator: Institut for Statskundskab, Aarhus Universitet; 2014. Available: http://www.uhr.no/documents/Evaluering-af-den-norske-publiceringsindikator.pdf.
28. Available: http://www.doi.org/.
29. ORCID. Available: http://orcid.org/.
30. Wilson B, Fenner M. Open Researcher & Contributor ID (ORCID): Solving the Name Ambiguity Problem 2012. Available: https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM1235.pdf. Accessed 2015.
31. ResearcherID. Available: http://wokinfo.com/researcherid/.
32. Khabsa M, Giles CL. The number of scholarly documents on the public web. PLoS One. 2014; 9(5): e93949. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093949 PMID: 24817403
33. ResearchGate. Available: http://www.researchgate.net/.
34. Kramer B, Bosman JM. Survey about Innovations in Scholarly Communication. Changing Research Workflows. 2015. Available: https://101innovations.wordpress.com/. Accessed 25 June 2015.
35. Procter RN, Williams R, Stewart J. If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use Web 2.0, 2010. Available: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/56246/
36. Heller L. What will the scholarly profile page of the future look like? Provision of metadata is enabling experimentation 2015. Available: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/07/16/scholarlyprofile-of-the-future/. Accessed 06 August 2015.
37. Duggan M, Smith A. Social media update 2013. 2013 [23.06.2015]. Available: http://www.pewinternet. org/2013/12/30/social-media-update-2013/.
38. Almousa O. Users' classification and usage-pattern identification in academic social networks. Applied Electrical Engineering and Computing Technologies (AEECT), 2011 IEEE Jordan Conference on. 2011:1-6. doi: 10.1109/AEECT.2011.6132525
39. Mikki S. Vitenskapelig publisering ved Universitetet i Bergen: Publiseringsstatistikk 2005-2014, 2015. Available: https://bora.uib.no/handle/1956/10129.
40. Adler R, Ewing J, Taylor P. Citation statistics 2008. Available: http://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf.
41. Bollen J, Van de Sompel H, Rodriguez MA. Towards usage-based impact metrics: first results from the mesur project. Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries. 2008:231-40. doi: 10.1145/1378889.1378928
42. Wan J-k, Hua P-h, Rousseau R, Sun X-k. The journal download immediacy index (DII): experiences using a Chinese full-text database. Scientometrics. 2010; 82(3):555-66. doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0171-2
43. Schlögl C, Gorraiz J, Gumpenberger C, Jack K, Kraker P. Comparison of downloads, citations and readership data for two information systems journals. Scientometrics. 2014; 101(2):1113-28. doi: 10. 1007/s11192-014-1365-9
44. Guerrero-Bote VP, Moya-Anegón F. Downloads versus citations and the role of publication language. Research Trends. 2014; 37:[19-22 pp.]. Available: http://www.researchtrends.com/issue-37-june-2014/downloads-versus-citations-and-the-role-of-publication-language/.
45. Bornmann L, Haunschild R. To what extent does the Leiden Manifesto also apply to altmetrics? A discussion of the manifesto against the background of research into altmetrics. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1464981.
46. Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, de Rijcke S, Rafols I. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature. 2015; 520(7548):429-31. doi: 10.1038/520429a PMID: 25903611
47. San Francisco Declaration on Research Asses 2012. Available: http://www.ascb.org/dora-old/files/SFDeclarationFINAL.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2015.