Search results

As academic social Q&A networking websites become more popular, scholars are increasingly using them to meet their information needs by asking academic questions. However, compared with other types of social media, scholars are less active on these sites, resulting in a lower response quantity for some questions. This paper explores the factors that help explain how to ask questions that generate more responses and examines the impact of different disciplines on response quantity.

The study examines 1,968 questions in five disciplines on the academic social Q&A platform ResearchGate Q&A and explores how the linguistic characteristics of these questions affect the number of responses. It uses a range of methods to statistically analyze the relationship between these linguistic characteristics and the number of responses, and conducts comparisons between disciplines.

The findings indicate that some linguistic characteristics, such as sadness, positive emotion and second-person pronouns, have a positive effect on response quantity; conversely, a high level of function words and first-person pronouns has a negative effect. However, the impacts of these linguistic characteristics vary across disciplines.

This study provides support for academic social Q&A platforms to assist scholars in asking richer questions that are likely to generate more answers across disciplines, thereby promoting improved academic communication among scholars.

Through a two-stage survey, this paper examines how researchers judge the quality of answers on ResearchGate Q&A, an academic social networking site.

In the first-stage survey, 15 researchers from Library and Information Science (LIS) judged the quality of 157 answers to 15 questions and reported the criteria that they had used. The content of their reports was analyzed, and the results were merged with relevant criteria from the literature to form the second-stage survey questionnaire. This questionnaire was then completed by researchers recognized as accomplished at identifying high-quality LIS answers on ResearchGate Q&A.

Most of the identified quality criteria for academic answers—such as relevance, completeness, and verifiability—have previously been found applicable to generic answers. The authors also found other criteria, such as comprehensiveness, the answerer's scholarship, and value-added. Providing opinions was found to be the most important criterion, followed by completeness and value-added.

The findings here show the importance of studying the quality of answers on academic social Q&A platforms and reveal unique considerations for the design of such systems.

With the growth in popularity of academic social networking sites, evaluating the quality of the academic information they contain has become increasingly important. Users' evaluations of this are based on predefined criteria, with external factors affecting how important these are seen to be. As few studies on these influences exist, this research explores the factors affecting the importance of criteria used for judging high-quality answers on academic social Q&A sites.

Scholars who had recommended answers on ResearchGate Q&A were asked to complete a questionnaire survey to rate the importance of various criteria for evaluating the quality of these answers. Statistical analysis methods were used to analyze the data from 215 questionnaires to establish the influence of scholars' demographic characteristics, the question types, the discipline and the combination of these factors on the importance of each evaluation criterion.

Particular disciplines and academic positions had a significant impact on the importance ratings of the criteria of relevance, completeness and credibility. Also, some combinations of factors had a significant impact: for example, older scholars tended to view verifiability as more important to the quality of answers to information-seeking questions than to discussion-seeking questions within the LIS and Art disciplines.

This research can help academic social Q&A platforms recommend high-quality answers based on different influencing factors, in order to meet the needs of scholars more effectively.

Academic social (question and answer) Q&A sites are now utilised by millions of scholars and researchers for seeking and sharing discipline-specific information. However, little is known about the factors that can affect their votes on the quality of an answer, nor how the discipline might influence these factors. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

Using 1,021 answers collected over three disciplines (library and information services, history of art, and astrophysics) in ResearchGate, statistical analysis is performed to identify the characteristics of high-quality academic answers, and comparisons were made across the three disciplines. In particular, two major categories of characteristics of the answer provider and answer content were extracted and examined.

The results reveal that high-quality answers on academic social Q&A sites tend to possess two characteristics: first, they are provided by scholars with higher academic reputations (e.g. more followers, etc.); and second, they provide objective information (e.g. longer answer with fewer subjective opinions). However, the impact of these factors varies across disciplines, e.g., objectivity is more favourable in physics than in other disciplines.

The study is envisioned to help academic Q&A sites to select and recommend high-quality answers across different disciplines, especially in a cold-start scenario where the answer has not received enough judgements from peers.

This paper aims to explore question and answer (Q&A) participation and behavioral patterns on academic social networking sites (ASNSs) from the perspective of multiple subjects such as academic, corporate and government institutions.

Focused on the Q&A service of ASNSs, this study chooses ResearchGate (RG) as the target ASNS and collects a large-scale data set from it, involving a sample of users and a Q&A sample about academic, corporate and government institutions. First, it studies the law of Q&A participation and the distribution of the type of user according to the sample of users. Second, it compares question-asking behavior and question-answering behavior stimulated by questions among the three types of institutions based on the Q&A sample. Finally, it discusses the Q&A participation and behavioral patterns of the three types of institutions in academic Q&A exchanges with full consideration of institutional attributes, and provides some suggestions for institutions and ASNSs.

The results show that these three types of institutions generally have a low level of participation in the Q&A service of RG, and the numbers of questions and answers proposed by institutional users conform to the power-law distribution. There are differences in Q&A participation and Q&A behavioral patterns among academic, corporate and government institutions. Government and academic institutions have more users participating in the Q&A service and their users are more willing to ask questions, while corporate institutions have fewer users who participate in the Q&A service and their users are inclined to provide answers. Questions from corporate institutions attract much more attention than those from the other two types of institutions.

This study reveals and compares the Q&A participation and the behavioral patterns of the three types of institutions in academic Q&A, thus deepening the understanding of the attributes of institutions in the academic information exchange context. In practice, the results can help guide different institutions to use the Q&A service of ASNSs more effectively and help ASNSs to better optimize their Q&A service.

Under the background of open science, this paper integrates altmetrics data and combines multiple evaluation methods to analyze and evaluate the indicators' characteristics of discourse leading for academic journals, which is of great significance to enrich and improve the evaluation theory and indicator system of academic journals.

This paper obtained 795,631 citations and 10.3 million altmetrics indicators data for 126,424 published papers from 151 medicine, general and internal academic journals. In this paper, descriptive statistical analysis and distribution rules of evaluation indicators are first carried out at the macro level. The distribution characteristics of evaluation indicators under different international collaboration conditions are analyzed at the micro level. Second, according to the characteristics and connotation of the evaluation indicators, the evaluation indicator system is constructed. Third, correlation analysis, factor analysis, entropy weight method and TOPSIS method are adopted to evaluate and analyze the discourse leading in medicine, general and internal academic journals by integrating altmetrics. At the same time, this paper verifies the reliability of the evaluation results.

Six features of discourse leading integrated with altmetrics indicators are obtained. In the era of open science, online academic exchanges are becoming more and more popular. The evaluation activities based on altmetrics have fine-grained and procedural advantages. It is feasible and necessary to integrate altmetrics indicators and combine the advantages of multiple methods to evaluate the academic journals' discourse leading of which are in a diversified academic ecosystem.

This paper uses descriptive statistical analysis to analyze the distribution characteristics and distribution rules of discourse leading indicators of academic journals and to explore the availability of altmetrics indicators and the effectiveness of constructing an evaluation system. Then, combining the advantages of multiple evaluation methods, The author integrates altmetrics indicators to comprehensively evaluate the discourse leading of academic journals and verify the reliability of the evaluation results. This paper aims to provide references for enriching and improving the evaluation theory and indicator system of academic journals.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a mobile and social-based question-and-answer (Q&A) system that analyzes users' social relationships and past answering behavior, considers users' interest similarity and answer quality to infer suitable respondents and forwards the questions to users that are willing to give high quality answers.

This research applies first-order logic (FOL) inference calculation to generate question/interest ID that combines a users' social information, interests and social network intimacy to choose the nodes that can provide high-quality answers. After receiving a question, a friend can answer it, forward it to their friends according to the number of TTL (Time-to-Live) hops, or send the answer directly to the server. This research collected data from the TripAdvisor.com website and uses it for the experiment. The authors also collected previously answered questions from TripAdvisor.com; thus, subsequent answers could be forwarded to a centralized server to improve the overall performance.

The authors have first noticed that even though the proposed system is decentralized, it can still accurately identify the appropriate respondents to provide high-quality answers. In addition, since this system can easily identify the best answerers, there is no need to implement broadcasting, thus reducing the overall execution time and network bandwidth required. Moreover, this system allows users to accurately and quickly obtain high-quality answers after comparing and calculating interest IDs. The system also encourages frequent communication and interaction among users. Lastly, the experiments demonstrate that this system achieves high accuracy, high recall rate, low overhead, low forwarding cost and low response rate in all scenarios.

This paper proposes a mobile and social-based Q&A system that applies FOL inference calculation to analyze users' social relationships and past answering behavior, considers users' interest similarity and answer quality to infer suitable respondents and forwards the questions to users that are willing to give high quality answers. The experiments demonstrate that this system achieves high accuracy, high recall rate, low overhead, low forwarding cost and low response rate in all scenarios.

This study aims to investigate motivators, mediator and moderator of users' sustained information seeking on academic social networking sites (ASNSs).

Drawing upon the expectancy–value theory and related information-seeking literature, the study developed a theoretical model to explain why and how users intend to continue seeking information on ASNSs. Thereafter, a field survey with 385 participants was conducted to test the model. Finally, a content analysis of participants' post-survey feedback was performed to complement the model test results by showing more fine-grained findings.

Results suggest that information usefulness and information adoption (IA) are significant to users' sustained information seeking on ASNSs, while users' satisfaction with ASNSs may play a mediating role in the relationship between information usefulness and sustained information seeking. Additionally, self-efficacy for critical thinking (SCT) weakens the impact of IA on users' satisfaction with ASNSs. The post-survey feedback analysis indicates that information usefulness is more critical to sustained information seeking for users with high SCT, whereas IA becomes more crucial to users' satisfaction with ASNSs and sustained information seeking for users with low SCT.

Although the extant literature has distinguished between information seeking and sustained information seeking, empirical research into users' sustained information seeking on ASNSs is limited. The study fills this gap by proposing and validating relevant factors and the boundary condition of users' sustained information seeking.

Knowledge adoption is the key to effective knowledge exchange in virtual question-and-answer (Q&A) communities. Although previous studies have examined the effects of knowledge content, knowledge source credibility and the personal characteristics of knowledge seekers on knowledge adoption in virtual Q&A communities from a static perspective, the impact of answer deviation on knowledge adoption has rarely been explored from a context-based perspective. The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of two-way deviation on knowledge adoption in virtual Q&A communities, with the aim of expanding the understanding of knowledge exchange and community management.

The same question and the same answerer often yield multiple answers. Knowledge seekers usually read multiple answers to make adoption decisions. The impact of deviations among answers on knowledge seekers' knowledge adoption is critical. From a context-based perspective, a research model of the impact of the deviation of horizontal and vertical answers on knowledge adoption is established based on the heuristic-systematic model (HSM) and empirically examined with 88,287 Q&A data points and answerer data collected from Zhihu. Additionally, the moderation effects of static factors such as answerer reputation and answer length are examined.

The negative binomial regression results show that the content and emotion deviation of horizontal answers negatively affect knowledge seekers' knowledge adoption. The content deviation of vertical answers is negatively associated with knowledge adoption, while the emotion deviation of vertical answers is positively related to knowledge adoption. Moreover, answerer reputation positively moderates the negative effect of the emotion deviation of horizontal answers on knowledge adoption. Answer length weakens the negative correlation between the content deviation of horizontal and vertical answers and knowledge adoption.

This study extends previous research on knowledge adoption from a static perspective to a context-based perspective. Moreover, information deviation is expanded from a one-way variable to a two-way variable. The combined effects of static and contextual factors on knowledge adoption are further uncovered. This study can not only help knowledge seekers identify the best answers but also help virtual Q&A community managers optimize community design and operation to reduce the cost of knowledge search and improve the efficiency of knowledge exchange.