Academic Internet networks:
a platform for scientific exchange or Instagramm for scientists? (The case of ResearchGate)
Cand. of Sci. (Philos.), Head of the Centre for Sociology of Science in S. I. Vavilov Institute for the History of Science and Technology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg, Russia. email@example.com
Prof., Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Institute of Indistrial Management, Economics and Trade, Peter the Great Saint-Petersburg Polytechnic University, Saint Petersburg, Russia. firstname.lastname@example.org
Junior researcher of Centre for Sociology of Science, S. I. Vavilov Institute for the History of Science and Technology, St. Petersburg Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg, Russia. email@example.com
This paper presents results of a study which aimed to investigate the connection between virtual network communication (ResearchGate, RG) and ‘real’ professional achievements. The goal of the paper is to identify the range of RG users’ communicative practices, to recreate the strategic landscape of the network, and to gain insight into how institutional factors and demographic characteristics influence users’ network activity. To achieve these objectives, empirical research was conducted. For data collection, the Web Scraping method, and the “web crawler” tool were applied. The sample comprised 4800 profiles with quotas of 200 profiles distributed in each of the 24 scientific disciplines. Cluster analysis revealed three clusters of RG users according to their communicative practices. Age and status did not prove to have any significant effect on network activity. However, ranking users’ institutional membership according to ARWU showed that institutional factors do influence network behaviour. This research generated the conclusion that network interactions are an element of a sophisticated system of scientific communications wherein intensiveness of network communication increases while other components (direct formal and informal communication) stop playing an essential role in fulfilling research tasks and in achieving professional growth. The verified results of this research contribute to understanding how a researcher can use network advantages in his/her professional life, and how network can be used to overcome institutional barriers hindering academic growth.
Corvello V., Genovese A., Verteramo S. (2014) Knowledge Sharing among Users of Scientific Social Networking Platforms. DSS 2.0 – Supporting Decision Making with New Technologies. Vol. 261: 369– 380 (IFIP TC8/Working Group 8.3 Conference on DSS 2.0 – Supporting Decision Making with New Technologies).
Dziuban C. D., Shirkey E. C. (1974) When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 81. No. 6: 358–361.
Engwall L. and Scott P. (eds) (2013) Trust in Universities Wenner-Gren Vol. 86. London: Portland Press.
Griffith B. C., Mullins N. C. (1972) Coherent Social Groups in Scientific Change. In: Communication in Modern Science. Ed. by E. M. Mirsky, V. N. Sadovsky. Moscow: Progress (In Russ.)
Hagit M.-T., Efrat P. (2017) Why Do Academics Use Academic Social Networking Sites? International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. Vol. 18. No. 1: 1–22.
Hamid R.J., Nicholas D., Herman E. (2016) Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms. Research Evaluation. Vol.5. No.1: 37–49.
Judin G. (2010) Illusion of Scientific Community. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [The Russian Sociological Review]. Vol. 9. No 3: 57–88 (In Russ.)
Lavrenchuk E. (2009) Autopoyesis of the social networks. Vestnik RGGU [RSUH/RGGU Bulletin]. No. 12: 48–56. (In Russ.)
Leont’ev V.P. (2012) Social Networks. VKontakte, Facebook and others… Moscow: OLMA Media Grupp. (In Russ.)
Mikki S., Zygmuntowska M., Gjesdal О. L., Al Ruwehy H.A (2015) Digital Presence of Norwegian Scholars on Academic Network Sites –Where and Who Are They? PLoS ONE. Vol. 10. No. 11. URL: https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142709
Noorden R. (2014) Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature. Vol. 512. No. 7513: 126–129.
Ortega J. L. (2015a) Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Information Review. Vol. 39. No. 4: 520–536.
Ortega J. L. (2015b) How is an academic social site populated? A demographic study of Google Scholar Citations population. Scientometrics. Vol. 104. No.1: 1–18.
Price D. J. de S., Beaver D. de B. (1966) Collaboration in an Invisible College. In: Communication in Modern Science. Ed. by E. M. Mirsky, V. N. Sadovsky. Moscow: Progress (in Russ.)
Tishchenko V. I., Zhukova T. I., Smirnova N. S. (2012) Research of communication processes in the academic scientific community. In: Social Networks and Online Communities. Ed. by L. Verchenov, D. Efremenko, V. Tishchenko. Moscow: INION RAN: 272–290. (In Russ.)
Thelwall M., Kousha K. (2015) ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Vol. 66. No. 5: 876–889.
Thelwall M., Kousha K. (2014) Academia. edu: social network or academic network? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Vol.65. No. 4: 721–31.
Wellman B. (2012) Networked. The New Social Operating System. L. Rainie, B. Wellman (eds) The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England.
Winter E., Yushkevich A.P. (1973) L. Euler-s Correspondence from 1726 to 1774 and St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (the 250th anniversary of the Academy of Sciences USSR) In: Woprosy istorii estestwoznanija I techniki [Questions of history of science and technology]. No. 3: 14–19. (In Russ.)