How do scientists share on academic social networks like ResearchGate?
A data analysis of
user habits shows open sharing is mostly limited to publications; very
few scientists are liberal with knowhow. A key aim of sciencebite is to create a open platform for scientific expertise online. At the moment, sciencebite
is much smaller than the academic social networks, academia.edu,
researchgate.net and mendeley.com. So I wondered how scientists behave
on these networks, how they are promoting their identities, publications
and expertise, and how they are connecting with each other.
user habits shows open sharing is mostly limited to publications; very
few scientists are liberal with knowhow. A key aim of sciencebite is to create a open platform for scientific expertise online. At the moment, sciencebite
is much smaller than the academic social networks, academia.edu,
researchgate.net and mendeley.com. So I wondered how scientists behave
on these networks, how they are promoting their identities, publications
and expertise, and how they are connecting with each other.
Without wishing to comment on the
competitive positions of the three largest academic networks, in this
part of the world – Berlin – where we are based, ResearchGate is the one
that we hear about the most, and with a claimed user count of > 6m
academics from whitelisted institutions, it has certainly achieved an
amazing penetration of the world’s academics. Speaking personally as
someone with a background in academic science, I can confirm that every
scientist that I know now seems to have a ResearchGate profile, although
many do not actively engage with it.
competitive positions of the three largest academic networks, in this
part of the world – Berlin – where we are based, ResearchGate is the one
that we hear about the most, and with a claimed user count of > 6m
academics from whitelisted institutions, it has certainly achieved an
amazing penetration of the world’s academics. Speaking personally as
someone with a background in academic science, I can confirm that every
scientist that I know now seems to have a ResearchGate profile, although
many do not actively engage with it.
So how are scientists behaving online,
taking ResearchGate as the source of data? I wrote a script to browse
ResearchGate profiles at random, and ran it twice, to look at the change
over a year: firstly in November 2013 (sampling 3028 profiles), and
secondly in February 2015 (sampling 3407 profiles). The sample
represents some 0.1% of ResearchGate profiles, and leads to some pretty
interesting conclusions about how scientists behave on the new internet
platforms.
taking ResearchGate as the source of data? I wrote a script to browse
ResearchGate profiles at random, and ran it twice, to look at the change
over a year: firstly in November 2013 (sampling 3028 profiles), and
secondly in February 2015 (sampling 3407 profiles). The sample
represents some 0.1% of ResearchGate profiles, and leads to some pretty
interesting conclusions about how scientists behave on the new internet
platforms.
Scientists are increasingly sharing their professional identities online
ResearchGate has 6m users as of January
2015, and is currently growing at around 10k users per day. A growing
minority of users share their professional identity on the site (Figure
1): 36% shared a profile picture in 2013, 43% in 2015. Fewer have
updated their profiles with their current positions, but this too is
growing: 7% in 2013 and 24% in 2015. It’s interesting that fewer have
filled in a current position than uploaded a profile picture, which
perhaps reflects that many users register with Facebook, or have left
academia since joining ResearchGate. As of February 2015, 18% have both
uploaded a profile picture and filled in their current position. If we
consider this as a definition of an active user, we can estimate
ResearchGate’s active user base as 1.1m.
2015, and is currently growing at around 10k users per day. A growing
minority of users share their professional identity on the site (Figure
1): 36% shared a profile picture in 2013, 43% in 2015. Fewer have
updated their profiles with their current positions, but this too is
growing: 7% in 2013 and 24% in 2015. It’s interesting that fewer have
filled in a current position than uploaded a profile picture, which
perhaps reflects that many users register with Facebook, or have left
academia since joining ResearchGate. As of February 2015, 18% have both
uploaded a profile picture and filled in their current position. If we
consider this as a definition of an active user, we can estimate
ResearchGate’s active user base as 1.1m.
Figure 1: Identity sharing on ResearchGate
A growing number of scientists are sharing full texts of their publications
We see an impressive engagement with
sharing full texts of publications online (Figure 2). Some 41% of
ResearchGate users had uploaded at least one full text by Nov 2013,
growing to 80% by Feb 2015. Considering the rapid growth of ResearchGate
signups in this time, it reflects an impressive rate of sharing among
new users.
sharing full texts of publications online (Figure 2). Some 41% of
ResearchGate users had uploaded at least one full text by Nov 2013,
growing to 80% by Feb 2015. Considering the rapid growth of ResearchGate
signups in this time, it reflects an impressive rate of sharing among
new users.
Figure
2: Publication uploading on ResearchGate has achieved an amazing
penetration of the academic community. Now 80% of RG users have uploaded
at least one full text.
2: Publication uploading on ResearchGate has achieved an amazing
penetration of the academic community. Now 80% of RG users have uploaded
at least one full text.
It’s remarkable that so many more users
have shared their publications (~3m) than filled in their profile
information (~1m). However, given the importance of publications in the
academic career path, it is perhaps less surprising: academics find it
more important to share publications than to display their current
position. This would surely be the opposite of user behavior on
mainstream professional networks like LinkedIn.
have shared their publications (~3m) than filled in their profile
information (~1m). However, given the importance of publications in the
academic career path, it is perhaps less surprising: academics find it
more important to share publications than to display their current
position. This would surely be the opposite of user behavior on
mainstream professional networks like LinkedIn.
In addition to the sampling of users, I
sampled 1000 publications randomly on ResearchGate, looking at the
relationship between publication date and sharing. In the past
three years, a great number of new publications have been listed on
ResearchGate, reflecting its deep penetration of the scientific
community. We can also see that new publications are increasingly shared
on ResearchGate – almost half of new publications in the past three
years are uploaded (Figure 3).
sampled 1000 publications randomly on ResearchGate, looking at the
relationship between publication date and sharing. In the past
three years, a great number of new publications have been listed on
ResearchGate, reflecting its deep penetration of the scientific
community. We can also see that new publications are increasingly shared
on ResearchGate – almost half of new publications in the past three
years are uploaded (Figure 3).
Figure
3: The growth in shared full texts on ResearchGate reflects the amazing
penetration of the academic community in recent years. Now almost 50%
of new publications are shared openly as full text.
3: The growth in shared full texts on ResearchGate reflects the amazing
penetration of the academic community in recent years. Now almost 50%
of new publications are shared openly as full text.
Almost nobody is using ResearchGate’s Open Reviews
ResearchGate launched a new feature in
March 2014: Open Reviews, for scientists to openly peer-review each
others’ papers after publication, for quality, originality,
reproducibility, etc. Unfortunately almost nobody is using it. Only 4
users in my sample of 3407 have given an Open Review, and none came back
to give a second.
March 2014: Open Reviews, for scientists to openly peer-review each
others’ papers after publication, for quality, originality,
reproducibility, etc. Unfortunately almost nobody is using it. Only 4
users in my sample of 3407 have given an Open Review, and none came back
to give a second.
The reason for this low adoption is
probably that scientists get little career advancement from an Open
Review. If they give a negative review, they may make enemies, and they
gain none of the influence over a journal that they do in the
traditional peer review system. Moreover, if they give a positive
review, it does not help their publication and citation record, which
are their main criteria to advance their careers.
probably that scientists get little career advancement from an Open
Review. If they give a negative review, they may make enemies, and they
gain none of the influence over a journal that they do in the
traditional peer review system. Moreover, if they give a positive
review, it does not help their publication and citation record, which
are their main criteria to advance their careers.
Sharing of knowhow and advice is still lacking
Far fewer users engage with the Q&A
forum on ResearchGate, in comparison with their sharing of publications
(Figure 4). In November 2013, only 6.3% had ever asked, commented on, or
answered a question. Even of those who had engaged with Q&A, very
few were repeat users: 2.3% had ever asked a question, only 0.56% had
come back to ask a second question, and only one in the entire sample
could be really classified as an active user by asking more than 10
questions.
forum on ResearchGate, in comparison with their sharing of publications
(Figure 4). In November 2013, only 6.3% had ever asked, commented on, or
answered a question. Even of those who had engaged with Q&A, very
few were repeat users: 2.3% had ever asked a question, only 0.56% had
come back to ask a second question, and only one in the entire sample
could be really classified as an active user by asking more than 10
questions.
The situation had not improved much by
February 2015. 6.6% had even asked/commented/answered. 2.8% had ever
asked, and 1.1% had ever come back for a second. No users in the sample
had asked more than 10 questions.
February 2015. 6.6% had even asked/commented/answered. 2.8% had ever
asked, and 1.1% had ever come back for a second. No users in the sample
had asked more than 10 questions.
Why do so few scientists request and
share practical knowhow and advice online? Perhaps it is the secretive
culture of research, and the importance of publications versus other
types of dissemination. Perhaps it is also because of the highly
specialized nature of knowhow in science – valuable knowhow is often
much more specialized than in other professions, for example in software
development, where programmers enjoy a culture of sharing all kinds of
practical information, through open source software, blogs and Q&A
sites.
share practical knowhow and advice online? Perhaps it is the secretive
culture of research, and the importance of publications versus other
types of dissemination. Perhaps it is also because of the highly
specialized nature of knowhow in science – valuable knowhow is often
much more specialized than in other professions, for example in software
development, where programmers enjoy a culture of sharing all kinds of
practical information, through open source software, blogs and Q&A
sites.
Figure
4: Knowhow sharing on ResearchGate is still minimal. Only a very small
proportion of users use the Q&A, and this proportion has changed
little in 2013 – 2015
4: Knowhow sharing on ResearchGate is still minimal. Only a very small
proportion of users use the Q&A, and this proportion has changed
little in 2013 – 2015
Conclusion: scientists are changing some of their habits, but only as far as the academic career path allows them
Great numbers of scientists are now
sharing online, and in the past couple of years, it has become common to
share publications openly on academic social networks like
ResearchGate. However, not many scientists have changed their behavior
beyond this – other types of sharing are still lacking, In particular,
sharing of expertise and knowhow is still minimal.
sharing online, and in the past couple of years, it has become common to
share publications openly on academic social networks like
ResearchGate. However, not many scientists have changed their behavior
beyond this – other types of sharing are still lacking, In particular,
sharing of expertise and knowhow is still minimal.
I believe this represents a great
challenge and opportunity to scientists who are interested in working
differently. The trend of online sharing among scientists still
overwhelmingly reflects the traditional academic career path, because it
so strongly anchored to journal publications and citations. For all the
frustrations of collaborating and making progress in science, there are
perhaps still a great number of undiscovered solutions that would allow
us to work together better.
challenge and opportunity to scientists who are interested in working
differently. The trend of online sharing among scientists still
overwhelmingly reflects the traditional academic career path, because it
so strongly anchored to journal publications and citations. For all the
frustrations of collaborating and making progress in science, there are
perhaps still a great number of undiscovered solutions that would allow
us to work together better.
How do scientists share on academic social networks like ResearchGate? |
No comments:
Post a Comment