ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size, and impact

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 68, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 468-479

  Thelwall, Mike ^a   Kousha, Kayvan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HEALTH PROFESSIONS; IMPACT INDICATORS; POSITIVE CORRELATIONS;

HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HUMANITIES; OCCUPATION; PUBLISHING; SCOPUS;

EID: 84962269769     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23675     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Albarrán, P., Crespo, J. A., Ortuño, I., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2011). The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates. Scientometrics, 88(2), 385–397.
2. Alheyasat, O. (2015). Examination expertise sharing in academic social networks using graphs: The case of ResearchGate. Contemporary Engineering Sciences, 8(1–4), 137–151.
3. Arènes, C. (2015). Les réseaux sociaux numériques pour chercheurs: Quelles pratiques, quels enjeux? Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 1(2), 239–247.
4. Bar-Ilan, J. (2004). The use of web search engines in information science research. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38(1), 231–288.
5. Botero, C., Carrico, S., & Tennant, M. R. (2011). Using comparative online journal usage studies to assess the Big Deal. Library Resources & Technical Services, 52(2), 61–68.
6. Brody, T., Harnad, S., & Carr, L. (2006). Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1060–1072.
7. Campos Freire, F., & Valencia, A. (2015). Managing academic profiles on scientific social networks. In New contributions in information systems and technologies (pp. 265–273). Berlin: Springer.
8. Campos Freire, F., Rivera Rogel, D., & Rodríguez, C. (2014). La presencia e impacto de las universidades de los países andinos en las redes sociales digitales. Revista Latina de Comunicacion Social, 69, 571–592.
9. Chakraborty, N. (2012). Activities and reasons for using social networking sites by research scholars in NEHU: A study on Facebook and ResearchGate. Retrieved from http://ir.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/1944/1666
10. Clarke, M. (2013). The end of an era for Academia.edu and other academic networks? The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/11/has-elsevier-signaled-a-new-era-for-academia-edu-and-other-professional-networks/
11. Corvello, V., Genovese, A., & Verteramo, S. (2014). Knowledge sharing among users of scientific social networking platforms. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 261, 369–380.
12. Davis, P. M. (2011). Open access, readership, citations: A randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing. The FASEB Journal, 25(7), 2129–2134.
13. Delgado López-Cózar, E., Robinson-García, N., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2014). The Google Scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(3), 446–454.
14. de Solla Price, D. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27, 292–306.
15. Duy, J., & Vaughan, L. (2006). Can electronic journal usage data replace citation data as a measure of journal use? An empirical examination. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(5), 512–517.
16. Elsayed, A. M. (2015). The use of academic social networks among Arab researchers: A survey. Advance online publication. Social Science Computer Review. DOI: 10.1177/0894439315589146
17. Glänzel, W., Schubert, A., & Czerwon, H. J. (1999). An item-by-item subject classification of papers published in multidisciplinary and general journals using reference analysis. Scientometrics, 44(3), 427–439.
18. Goodwin, S., Jeng, W., & He, D. (2014). Changing communication on ResearchGate through interface updates. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51(1), 1–4.
19. Gunn, W. (2013). Social signals reflect academic impact: What it means when a scholar adds a paper to Mendeley. Information Standards Quarterly, 25(2), 33–39.
20. Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2014). Mendeley as a source of readership by students and postdocs? Evaluating article usage by academic status. In Proceeding of the IATUL Conference. Paper 2. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2014/altmetrics/2/
21. Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Thelwall, M., Amyot, D., & Peters, I. (2014). Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? Information Technology, 56(5), 207–215.
22. Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Meckel, M. (2015). A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi: 10.1002/asi.23423
23. Jordan, K. (2015). Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric: Reflections and implications for practice. In Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web (ASCW15), Oxford. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/43538/1/ASCW15_jordan_response_kraker-lex.pdf
24. Kadriu, A. (2013). Discovering value in academic social networks: A case study in ResearchGate. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces (ITI2013) (pp. 57–62). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
25. Kamath, V. V., Setlur, K., & Yerlagudda, K. (2015). Oral lichenoid lesions—A review and update. Indian Journal of Dermatology, 60(1), 102.
26. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disseminating research with web CV hyperlinks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1615–1626.
27. Kraker, P., & Lex, E. (2015). A critical look at the ResearchGate score as a measure of scientific reputation. In Proceedings of the Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web workshop (ASCW15), Web Science Conference 2015, Oxford, UK.
28. Kurtz, M. J., Eichhorn, G., Accomazzi, A., Grant, C., Demleitner, M., Murray, S. S., … Elwell, B. (2005). The bibliometric properties of article readership information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(2), 111–128.
29. Łaczmański, Ł., Jakubik, M., Bednarek-Tupikowska, G., Rymaszewska, J., Słoka, N., & Lwow, F. (2015). Vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms in Alzheimer's disease patients. Experimental Gerontology, 69, 142–147.
30. Larivière, V., Archambault, É., & Gingras, Y. (2008). Long-term variations in the aging of scientific literature: From exponential growth to steady-state science (1900–2004). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(2), 288–296.
31. Lewandowski, D., Wahlig, H., & Meyer-Bautor, G. (2006). The freshness of web search engine databases. Journal of Information Science, 32, 131–148.
32. Li, X., & Thelwall, M. (2012). F1000, Mendeley and traditional bibliometric indicators. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (Vol. 2, pp. 451–551). Montréal: Science-Metrix and OST.
33. Li, L., He, D., Jeng, W., Goodwin, S., & Zhang, C. (2015). Answer quality characteristics and prediction on an academic Q&A Site: A case study on ResearchGate. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 1453–1458). Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland: IW3C2.
34. Lupton, D. (2014). ‘Feeling better connected’: Academics' use of social media. Canberra: News & Media Research Centre, University of Canberra. Retrieved from http://www.canberra.edu.au/about-uc/faculties/arts-design/attachments2/pdf/n-and-mrc/Feeling-Better-Connected-report-final.pdf
35. Madhusudhan, M. (2012). Use of social networking sites by research scholars of the University of Delhi: A study. International Information and Library Review, 44(2), 100–113.
36. Mahajan, P., Singh, H., & Kumar, A. (2013). Use of SNSs by the researchers in India: A comparative study of Panjab University and Kurukshetra University. Library Review, 62(8/9), 525–546.
37. Mas-Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., & Aguillo, I. F. (2014). Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? Scientometrics, 101(1), 337–356.
38. McKellar, C., & Currie, G. M. (2015). Publication productivity in nuclear medicine. Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology, 43(2), 122–128.
39. Moed, H. F. (2006). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Berlin: Springer.
40. Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627–1638.
41. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(9), 1832–1846.
42. Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). Can Mendeley bookmarks reflect readership? A survey of user motivations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi: 10.1002/asi.23477
43. Onyancha, O. B. (2015). Social media and research: An assessment of the coverage of South African universities in ResearchGate, Web of Science and the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 81(1), 8–20.
44. Ortega, J. L. (2015). Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC's members. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 39–49.
45. Ovadia, S. (2014). ResearchGate and Academia.edu: Academic social networks. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 33(3), 165–169.
46. Scarlat, M. M., Mavrogenis, A. F., Pećina, M., & Niculescu, M. (2015). Impact and alternative metrics for medical publishing: Our experience with International Orthopaedics. International Orthopaedics, 39(8), 1459–1464.
47. Sud, P., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1131–1143. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1117-2.
48. Swan, A., & Brown, S. (2005). Open access self-archiving: An author study. Retrieved from http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/jisc2.pdf
49. Thelwall, M. (2008). Extracting accurate and complete results from search engines: Case study Windows Live. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(1), 38–50.
50. Thelwall, M. (2015). Why do papers have many Mendeley readers but few Scopus-indexed citations and vice versa? Journal of Librarianship & Information Science. doi:10.1177/0961000615594867
51. Thelwall, M., & Fairclough, R. (2015a). Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles. Journal of Informetrics, 9(2), 263–272.
52. Thelwall, M., & Fairclough, R. (2015b). The influence of time and discipline on the magnitude of correlations between citation counts and quality scores. Journal of Informetrics, 9(3), 529–541.
53. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2014). Academia.edu: Social network or academic network? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 721–731.
54. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 876–889.
55. Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2014). Regression for citation data: An evaluation of different methods. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 963–971.
56. Thelwall, M., & Wilson, P. (2015). Mendeley readership altmetrics for medical articles: An analysis of 45 fields. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi: 10.1002/asi.23501
57. Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration. Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126–129. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/online-collaboration-scientists-and-the-social-network-1.15711
58. van Raan, A. F. (2004). Sleeping beauties in science. Scientometrics, 59(3), 467–472.
59. Vaughan, L., & Thelwall, M. (2004). Search engine coverage bias: Evidence and possible causes. Information Processing & Management, 40(4), 693–707.
60. Velik, R. (2015). An objective review of the technological developments for radial pulse diagnosis in Traditional Chinese Medicine. European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 7, 321–331.
61. Wang, X., Liu, C., Mao, W., & Fang, Z. (2015). The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics, 103(2), 555–564.
62. Ward, J., Bejarano, W., & Dudás, A. (2015). Scholarly social media profiles and libraries: A review. Liber Quarterly, 24(4), 174–204.
63. Wouters, P., & Costas, R. (2012). Users, narcissism and control: Tracking the impact of scholarly publications in the 21st century. Utrecht: SURF foundation. Retrieved from http://www.surffoundation.nl/nl/publicaties/Documents/Users%20narcissism%20and %20control.pdf
64. Zahedi, Z., Fenner, M., & Costas, R. (2014). How consistent are altmetrics providers? Study of 1000 PLOS ONE publications using the PLOS ALM, Mendeley and Altmetric.com APIs. In altmetrics 14. Workshop at the Web Science Conference, Bloomington, IN.
65. Zaugg, H., West, R. E., Tateishi, I., & Randall, D. L. (2011). Mendeley: Creating communities of scholarly inquiry through research collaboration. TechTrends, 55(1), 32–36.