Research output availability on academic social networks: implications for stakeholders in academic publishing

Abstract

A recent disruption in academic publishing are Academic Social Networks (ASN), i.e. web platforms such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu that have provided new ways for researchers to disseminate, search for, and retrieve research articles. ASNs are still a grey area in terms of implications for involved stakeholders, and research on them has so far been scarce. In an effort to map out factors related to ASN use this article provides a multi-method case study of one business school (Hanken School of Economics, Finland) that incorporates 1) a bibliometric analysis on the full-text availability of research output on ASNs for research published 2012–2014 by Hanken affiliated authors, 2) semi-structured interviews with faculty active in publishing in order to gain insight into motivations for use and use patterns, and 3) a survey distributed to all research-active faculty and doctoral students in order to gain a wider perspective on ASN use. ASNs have for many become the primary way to provide access to one’s research output, outpacing all other types of online locations such as personal websites and repositories. Based on the case study findings, earlier research, and recent industry developments, the article concludes with a discussion about the implications that the current trajectory of ASN use has on major stakeholders in academic publishing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Abrizah, A., Hilmi, M., & Kassim, N. A. (2015). Resource-sharing through an inter-institutional repository. The Electronic Library, 33(4), 730–748. doi:10.1108/EL-02-2014-0040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Academia.edu (2016) About Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/about. Retrieved 4th February 2016.

  3. Archambault, E., Amyot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A., Provencher, F., Rebout, L., & Roberge, G. (2014). Proportion of Open Access Papers Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals at the European and World Levels: 1996–2013 (41p.). Produced for the European Commission DG Research & Innovation. http://www.science-metrix.com/pdf/SM_EC_OA_Availability_2004-2011.pdf.

  4. 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, 237–250. doi:10.1002/asi.22963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. blogs.scientificamerican.com (2012) Interview with Richard Price, Academia.edu CEO. Interview by Hadas Shema. Published October 31 2012. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/interview-with-richard-price-academia-edu-ceo/

  6. Bohannon, B. (2016). Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone. Science, 352(6285), 508–512. doi:10.1126/science.352.6285.508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bullinger, A., Renken, U., & Möslein, K. (2011). Understanding online collaboration technology adoption by researchers-a model and empirical study. ICIS 2011 Proceedings. Paper 2. http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2011/proceedings/onlinecommunity/2.

  8. Elsevier (2016) Elsevier Acquires the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). Press Release 17th of May 2016. http://www.relx.com/mediacentre/pressreleases/2016/Pages/elsevier-acquires-ssrn.aspx.

  9. Elsever.com (2016) Share Links. https://www.elsevier.com/authors/journal-authors/share-link. Accessed 7th of June 2016.

  10. eventbrite.co.uk (2015) Why Are We Not Boycotting Academia.edu? Seminar organized on the 8th of December 2015 by The Centre for Disruptive Media, Coventry University, UK. https://web.archive.org/web/20160108221346/http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/why-are-we-not-boycotting-academiaedu-tickets-19653143080.

  11. Hanken.fi (2014) Hanken in Figures. http://www.hanken.fi/en/about-hanken/hanken/hanken-figures. Accessed 26 Feb 2016.

  12. howcanishareit.com (2016) How Can I Share It? STM Association. http://www.howcanishareit.com. Accessed 7th June 2016.

  13. Jamali, H., & Nabavi, M. (2016). Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google scholar in different subject fields. Scientometrics, 105, 1635–1165. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1642-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim, J. (2010). Faculty self-archiving: motivations and barriers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1909–1922. doi:10.1002/asi.21336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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/pdf/1410.8464v4.pdf.

  17. Matthewsa, D. (2016) Elsevier denies it will force SSRN users on to other services. Times Higher Education. May 19th 2016. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/elsevier-denies-it-will-force-ssrn-users-other-services.

  18. Matthewsb, D. (2016) Do academic social networks share academics’interests? Times Higher Education. April 7th 2016. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/do-academic-social-networks-share-academics-interests

  19. Mikki, S., Zygmuntowska, M., Gjesdal, Ø. L., & Al Ruwehy, H. A. (2015). Digital presence of Norwegian scholars on academic network sites—where and who are they? PloS One, 10(11), e0142709. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Niyazov, Y., Vogel, C., Price, R., Lund, B., Judd, D., et al. (2016). Open access meets discoverability: citations to articles posted to academia.Edu. PloS One, 11(2), e0148257. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Orduna-Malea, E., Martin-Martin, A., Ayllón, J. M., & López-Cózar, D. (2014). The silent fading of an academic search engine: the case of Microsoft academic search. Online Information Review, 38(7), 936–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ortega, J. L. (2015). Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Information Review, 39(4), 520–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ponte, D., & Simon, J. (2011). Scholarly communication 2.0: exploring researchers’ opinions on web 2.0 for scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and dissemination. Serials Review, 37(3), 149–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. ResearchGate (2016). ResearchGate Fact Sheet. http://www.researchgate.net/aboutus.AboutUsPress.downloadFile.html?name=rg_fact_sheet.pdf. Retrieved 4th February 2016.

  25. Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2006). The changing scholarly communication landscape: an international survey of senior researchers. Learned Publishing, 19, 31–55. doi:10.1087/095315106775122493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sawant, S. (2012). Management of Indian institutional repositories. OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives, 28(3), 130–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Spezi, V., Fry, J., Creaser, C., Probets, S., & White, S. (2013). Researchers’ green open access practice: a cross- disciplinary analysis. Journal of Documentation, 69(3), 334–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. STM (2015). Voluntary principles for article sharing on scholarly collaboration networks. http://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_06_08_Voluntary_principles_for_article_sharing_on_scholarly_collaboration_networks.pdf. Accessed 7th June 2016.

  29. Swan, A. (2010) Modelling Scholarly Communication Options: Costs and benefits for universities. http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/id/eprint/442.

  30. Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Christian, L., & Volentine, R. (2015). Scholarly article seeking, reading, and use: a continuing evolution from print to electronic in the sciences and social sciences. Learned Publishing, 28(2), 93–105. doi:10.1087/20150203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2014). Academia.Edu: social network or academic network? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 721–731. doi:10.1002/asi.23038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 876–889. doi:10.1002/asi.23236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. van Westrienen, G., and Lynch, CA. (2005) Academic Institutional Repositories: Deployment Status in 13 Nations as of Mid-2005. D-Lib Magazine 11(9). Available from http://www.dlib. org/dlib/september05/westrienen/09westrienen.html.

  34. Vincent-Lamarre, P., Boivin, J., Gargouri, Y., Larivière, V., & Harnad, S. (2015). Estimating open access mandate effectiveness: the MELIBEA score. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.23601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ware, M., and Mabe, M. (2015) The STM report - An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Accessed 29th of February 2016. http://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted as part of a project funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture in Finland (OKM/40/524/2015 DOCID:252381).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mikael Laakso.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Diego Ponte

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Laakso, M., Lindman, J., Shen, C. et al. Research output availability on academic social networks: implications for stakeholders in academic publishing. Electron Markets 27, 125–133 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-016-0242-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Academic social networks
  • Academia.edu
  • ResearchGate
  • Open access

JEL Classification

  • I2 Education and Research Institutions
  • Research and Development
  • Technological Change
  • Intellectual Property Rights
  • L5 Regulation and Industrial Policy