Scientometrics

, Volume 112, Issue 1, pp 241–254 | Cite as

Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles

Article

Abstract

ResearchGate is increasingly used by scholars to upload the full-text of their articles and make them freely available for everyone. This study aims to investigate the extent to which ResearchGate members as authors of journal articles comply with publishers’ copyright policies when they self-archive full-text of their articles on ResearchGate. A random sample of 500 English journal articles available as full-text on ResearchGate were investigated. 108 articles (21.6%) were open access (OA) published in OA journals or hybrid journals. Of the remaining 392 articles, 61 (15.6%) were preprint, 24 (6.1%) were post-print and 307 (78.3%) were published (publisher) PDF. The key finding was that 201 (51.3%) out of 392 non-OA articles infringed the copyright and were non-compliant with publishers’ policy. While 88.3% of journals allowed some form of self-archiving (SHERPA/RoMEO green, blue or yellow journals), the majority of non-compliant cases (97.5%) occurred when authors self-archived publishers’ PDF files (final published version). This indicates that authors infringe copyright most of the time not because they are not allowed to self-archive, but because they use the wrong version, which might imply their lack of understanding of copyright policies and/or complexity and diversity of policies.

Keywords

ResearchGate Copyright compliance Copyright infringement Depositing Researchers Journal articles Open access Self-archiving 

References

  1. Björk, B. C., Laakso, M., Welling, P., & Paetau, P. (2014). Anatomy of green open access. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 237–255. doi:10.1002/asi.2296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cabanac, G. (2016). Bibliogifts in LibGen? A study of a text-sharing platform driven by biblioleaks and crowdsourcing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 874–884. doi:10.1002/asi.23445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chakraborty, N. (2012). Activities and reasons for using social networking sites by research scholars in NEHU: A study on Facebook and ResearchGate. Planner, 19–27.Google Scholar
  4. Covey, D. T. (2009). Self-archiving journal articles: A case study of faculty practice and missed opportunity. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 9(2), 223–251. doi:10.1353/pla.0.0042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., & Probets, S. (2003a). RoMEO Studies 1: The impact of copyright ownership on academic author self-archiving. Journal of Documentation, 59(3), 243–277. doi:10.1108/00220410310698239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., & Probets, S. (2003b). RoMEO studies 4: An analysis of journal publishers’ copyright agreements. Learned Publishing, 16(4), 293–308. doi:10.1087/095315103322422053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hanlon, A., & Ramirez, M. (2011). Asking for permission: A survey of copyright workflows for institutional repositories. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 11(2), 683–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H., & Terliesner, J. (2014). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1145–1163. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1221-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Howard, J. (2013). Posting your latest article? You might have to take it down, chronicles of higher education. http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest-article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down/48865. 6 December 2013.
  10. Inaba, R., & Yamazaki, R. (2015). Survey on copyright infringement of digital contents: A case study of Japanese University Students. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 657–660). Springer, Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21383-5_110.
  11. Isiakpona, C. D. (2012). Undergraduate students’ Perception of copyright infringement: A case study of the University of Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice, Paper 689. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/689.
  12. Jamali, H. R., & Nabavi, M. (2015). Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1635–1651. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1642-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D., & Herman, E. (2016). Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms. Research Evaluation, 25(1), 37–49. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvv032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jamali, H. R., Russell, B., Nicholas, D., & Watkinson, A. (2014). Do online communities support research collaboration? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(6), 603–622. doi:10.1108/AJIM-08-2013-0072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kubalik, J., Matousek, K., Dolezal, J., & Necasky, M. (2011). Analysis of portal for social network of IT professionals. Journal of Systems Integration, 2(1), 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laakso, M. (2014). Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed. Scientometrics, 99(2), 475–494. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1205-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Library Connect. (2015). Beyond downloads: How scholars save & share research articles. https://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/Beyond_Downloads_infographic_2015.png.
  18. 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. doi:10.1080/10572317.2012.10762919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martín-Martín, A., Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllon, J. M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016). The counting house: Measuring those who count. Presence of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics and Altmetrics in the Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley & Twitter. EC3 Working Papers, 21. https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.02412.
  20. Martín-Martín, A., Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). Does Google scholar contain all highly cited documents (1950–2013)? EC3 Working Papers, 19. http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8464.
  21. Nicholas, D., Clark, D., & Herman, E. (2016). ResearchGate: Reputation uncovered. Learned Publishing, 29(3), 173–182. doi:10.1002/leap.1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nicholas, D., Herman, E., & Jamali, H. R. (2015). Emerging reputation mechanisms for scholars. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. doi:10.2791/891948.Google Scholar
  23. Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I., Watkinson, A., Brown, D., Russell, B., & Jamali, H. R. (2013). Have digital repositories come of age? The views of library directors. Webology, 10(2), Article 111. http://www.webology.org/2013/v10n2/a111.pdf.
  24. Oguz, F., & Assefa, S. (2014). Faculty members’ perceptions towards institutional repository at a medium-sized university: Application of a binary logistic regression model. Library Review, 63(3), 189–202. doi:10.1108/LR-07-2013-0088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Orduna-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016). ResearchGate como fuente de evaluación científica: desvelando sus aplicaciones bibliométricas. El profesional de la información (EPI), 25(2), 303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ortega, J. L. (2015). Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Information Review, 39(4), 520–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Palmer, C. L., Teffeau, L. C., & Newton, M. P. (2008). Identifying factors of success in CIC institutional repository development—final report. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/8981.
  28. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating and measuring scholars. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 876–889. doi:10.1002/asi.23236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2016). ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size, and impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. In press, doi:10.1002/asi.23675.
  30. Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network, Nature, 512 (14 August), 126–129. http://www.nature.com/news/online-collaboration-scientists-and-the-social-network-1.15711.
  31. Xia, J. (2007). Assessment of self-archiving in institutional repositories: Across disciplines. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33(6), 647–654. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2007.09.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Xia, J., & Sun, L. (2007). Assessment of self-archiving in institutional repositories: Depositorship and full-text availability. Serials Review, 33(1), 14–21. doi:10.1080/00987913.2007.10765087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yu, M. C., Wu, Y. C. J., Alhalabi, W., Kao, H. Y., & Wu, W. H. (2016). ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers? Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1001–1006. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information StudiesCharles Sturt UniversityWagga WaggaAustralia

Personalised recommendations