Search results

This article provides insight into researchers' use of academic web profiles and an understanding of how the influencing factors highlighted in the literature interact with each other, affecting researchers' motivation to use web profiles.

Based on motivation theory and literature related to the use of online profile platforms and academic web profiles, the authors present a conceptual framework for motivation factors influencing researchers' use of academic web profiles. The authors use qualitative interviews with researchers to explore and enrich the conceptual framework.

The conceptual framework of researchers' motivation space shows the relationships and influences between internal and external motivation in connection to three main categories (Identity and professional goals, Organisation and guidelines, Platforms and technology) and 12 more specific aspects of motivation that all play a role in choices regarding academic online profiles and platforms. Personality also plays an important role in itself – and not always in support of professional goals or workplace guidelines.

The study shows that a holistic perspective is necessary to understand the high degree of complexity in terms of researchers' motivation to use academic online profiles, and the presented conceptual framework can be used to understand and activate motivation factors.

Institutional and commercial web profiles that provide biobibliographic information about researchers are used for promotional purposes but also as information sources. In the latter case, the profiles' (re)presentations of researchers may be used to assess whether a researcher can be trusted. The article introduces a conceptual framework of how trust in researchers may be formed based on how the researchers' experiences and achievements are mobilized on the profiles to tell a multifaceted story of the “self.”

The framework is an analytical product which draws on theories of trust as well as on previous research focused on academic web profiles and on researchers' perceptions of trust and credibility. Two dimensions of trust are identified as central to the theoretical construction of trust, namely competence and trustworthiness.

The framework outlines features of profile content and narrative that may influence the assessment of the profile and of the researcher's competence and trustworthiness. The assessment is understood as shaped by the frames of interpretation available to a particular audience.

The framework addresses the lack of a trust perspective in previous research about academic web profiles. It provides an analysis of how potential trust in the researcher may be formed on the profiles. An innovative contribution is the acknowledgement of both qualitative and quantitative indicators of trustworthiness and competence, including the richness of the story told about the “self.”

The purpose of this paper is to better understand why many researchers do not have a profile on social networking sites (SNS), and whether this is the result of conscious decisions.

Thematic analysis was conducted on a large qualitative data set from researchers across three levels of seniority, four countries and four disciplines to explore their attitudes toward and experiences with SNS.

The study found much greater scepticism toward adopting SNS than previously reported. Reasons behind researchers’ scepticism range from SNS being unimportant for their work to not belonging to their culture or habits. Some even felt that a profile presented people negatively and might harm their career. These concerns were mostly expressed by junior and midlevel researchers, showing that the largest opponents to SNS may unexpectedly be younger researchers.

A limitation of this study was that the authors did not conduct the interviews, and therefore reframing or adding questions to specifically unpack comments related to attitudes, feelings or the use of SNS in academia was not possible.

By studying implicit attitudes and experiences, this study shows that instead of being ignorant of SNS profiles, some researchers actively opt for a non-use of profiles on SNS.

The activities of academic researchers are increasingly regulated by neo-liberal ideals, including expectations that researchers are visible online and actively promote their output. The purpose of this paper is to explore how researchers take on this responsibility. It uses the concepts of genre, authorship and self-writing in order to understand how the story of an academic life is constructed on academic web profiles.

A qualitative content analysis was conducted of material on 64 profiles belonging to 20 researchers on institutional and personal websites, as well as on ResearchGate, Academica.edu and Google Scholar.

The study shows that while institutional websites primarily contain researcher-produced material, content on commercial platforms is often co-constructed through distributed authorship by the researcher, the platform and other platform users. Nine different ways in which the profile of an “academic self” may be said to highlight the particular strengths of a researcher are identified. These include both metrics-based strengths and qualitative forms of information about the academic life, such as experience, the importance of their research and good teaching.

This study of academic web profiles contributes to a better understanding of how researchers self-govern the story of their academic self, or resist such governance, in online environments.

The study furthers the knowledge of how researchers make use of and respond to digital tools for online visibility opportunities and how the story of the “academic self” is “made” for such public presentation.

The authors passively apply a researcher profile pitch (RPP) template tool in accounting and across a range of Business School disciplines.

The authors document a diversity of worked examples of the RPP. Using an auto-ethnographic research design, each showcased researcher reflects on the exercise, highlighting nuanced perspectives drawn from their experience. Collectively, these examples and associated independent narratives allow the authors to identify common themes that provide informative insights to potential users.

First, the RPP tool is helpful for accounting scholars to portray their essential research stream. Moreover, the tool proved universally meaningful and applicable irrespective of research discipline or research experience. Second, it offers a distinct advantage over existing popular research profile platforms, because it demands a focused “less”, that delivers a meaningful “more”. Further, the conciseness of the RPP design makes it readily amenable to iteration and dynamism. Third, the authors have identified specific situations of added value, e.g. initiating research collaborations and academic job market preparation.

The RPP tool can provide the basis for developing a scalable interactive researcher exchange platform.

The authors argue that the RPP tool potentially adds meaningful incremental value relative to existing popular platforms for gaining researcher visibility. This additional value derives from the systematic RPP format, combined with the benefit of easy familiarity and strong emphasis on succinctness. Additionally, the authors argue that the RPP adds a depth of nuanced novel information often not contained in other platforms, e.g. around the dimensions of “data” and “tools”. Further, the RPP gives the researcher a “personality”, most notably through the dimensions of “contribution” and “other considerations”.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationships between researcher characteristics and their use of metadata in their ResearchGate profiles.

This paper reports on one part of a larger study that examined researchers’ use of and engagement with research information management systems (RIMSs). The study’s design included qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 15 researchers and a survey completed by 412 researchers. Detailed reports of findings from the interviews and survey can be found elsewhere. This paper reports on the part of the study that analyzed the use of metadata elements in the ResearchGate profiles of 126 survey participants.

Most researchers shared metadata related to their research rather than their teaching or service. Statistical analyses revealed statistically significant relationships between researchers’ metadata use and their participation levels in RIMSs, as well as between metadata use and researchers’ seniority.

The study’s findings help to identify researchers’ priorities for different metadata elements, as well as to construct profile metadata templates for each specific participation level.

The purpose of this paper is to carry out an altmetric analysis of faculty members and research scholars of Department of Physics and Astrophysics, University of Delhi (India) (Univ.Delhi P&A) who are members of the academic social networking site ResearchGate. ReserachGate is a rich source of altmetric indictors such as publications, reads, profile views, citations, impact points, RGScore, followers and following, etc. The RGScore, unique to ResearchGate, was further explored in depth in the study.

The data were collected manually by visiting the profile pages of all the members who had an account in ResearchGate under Univ.Delhi P&A during the first week of July, 2016. The authors found a total of 173 members in ResearchGate from the department. Data were collected for publications, reads, profile views, citations, impact points, RGScore, followers and following from the profile pages of the members. Correlations were calculated amongst the metrics provided by ResearchGate to seek the nature of the relationship amongst the various ResearchGate metrics.

The analysis revealed that the publications added by researchers to their profiles were relatively low, as 28.32 per cent of the members had not added even a single publication to their profiles. Average reads acquired per person was found to be 909.49 and the median value of reads was found to be 95. Average citation per member in ResearchGate was found to be 414.60 and the median value was found to be 7. Majority of the researchers (45.09 per cent) had impact points in the range of 0.2-50. Most of the members (35.84 per cent) had followers in the range of 1-10. Majority of the members (52.02 per cent) had profile views in the range of 1-100. Most of the members (26.01 per cent) had RGScore equivalent to 0.01. The highest correlation of RGScore was found with publications added by researchers to their profiles, followed by correlation between RGScore and reads, correlation between RGscore and profile views, correlation between RGScore and number of Full Texts and correlation between RGScore and number of followers of a researcher.

Not much research has been conducted in the area of altmetrics, especially using ResearchGate as a source of altmetrics. The findings of the study help in understanding the validity of ResearchGate as a source of altmetrics for research evaluation in a developing country such as India. Also, the novel ResearchGate indicator RGScore has been evaluated in great depth and its relationship with other ResearchGate altmetric and bibliometric indicators has been established.

Teacher-researchers carry out two singular, demanding and time-consuming, activities: research and teaching. Some, convinced of the cross-fertilization of these two activities, try to introduce elements of their research into their courses. This intention becomes a major challenge for interpretive and critical teacher-researchers in accounting who cannot rely on textbooks, mostly oriented for the mainstream. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how those teacher-researchers proceed to infuse their research into their courses.

This paper is an exploratory qualitative study based on interviews.

The results show three typical profiles that correspond to three ways of infusing research into courses, and how these profiles can evolve and combine.

The identification of teacher-researcher profiles allows categorization of how they infuse their research into their teaching. By listing the constraints imposed on teacher-researchers intending to infuse research, proposals for ways to overcome the identified constraints that hinder the cross-fertilization of research and teaching are suggested. The paper also reexamines the status of teachers-researchers in accounting who address a critical approach in their teaching.

Several frameworks have been developed to map and document scientific societal interaction and impact, each reflecting the specific forms of impact and interaction that characterize different academic fields. The ReAct taxonomy was developed to register data about “productive interactions” and provide an overview of research activities within the social sciences and humanities (SSH). The purpose of the present research is to examine whether the SSH-oriented taxonomy is relevant to the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines when clarifying societal interactions and impact, and whether the taxonomy adds value to the traditional STEM impact indicators such as citation scores and H-index.

The research question was investigated through qualitative interviews with nine STEM researchers. During the interviews, the ReAct taxonomy and visual research profiles based on the ReAct categories were used to encourage and ensure in-depth discussions. The visual research profiles were based on publicly available material on the research activities of the interviewees.

The study provided an insight into how STEM researchers assessed the importance of mapping societal interactions as a background for describing research impact, including which indicators are useful for expressing societal relevance and impact. With regard to the differences between STEM and SSH, the study identified a high degree of cohesion and uniformity in the importance of indicators. Differences were more closely related to the purpose of mapping and impact assessment than between scientific fields. The importance of amalgamation and synergy between academic and societal activities was also emphasised and clarified.

The findings highlight the importance of mapping societal activities and impact, and that societal indicators should be seen as inspiring guidelines depending on purpose and use. A significant contribution is the identification of both uniformity and diversity between the main fields of SSH and STEM, as well as the connection between the choice of indicators and the purpose of mapping, e.g. for impact measurement, profiling, or career development.

The work sheds light on STEM researchers' views on research mapping, visualisation and impact assessment, including similarities and differences between STEM and SSH research.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the use of Google Scholar Citations’ profiling platform by library and information science (LIS) scholars in Pakistan.

Purposive sampling was used to collect Google Scholar Citations profiles between 15 November 2017 and 31 January 2018. Resultant data were analyzed in SPSS Version 21.

In terms of demographical data, the study results were consistent with previous studies of Pakistani LIS scholars. There were strong correlations between Google Scholar Citations metrics (publications, citations, h-index and i10-index). The results indicate that, compared with a 2011 survey of LIS academics in Pakistan, the overall uptake for this cohort remains relatively low. This cohort is not maximizing the opportunity provided by this specific online profiling system to increase research visibility.

As the study was limited to those Pakistani LIS scholars who already had a profile on ResearchGate, it would be useful to broaden the research to encompass all Pakistani LIS scholars.

The role of the librarian as an adviser in scholarly communication and impact can be extended to support scholars in the adoption of new online platforms for scholarly communication and visibility.

There have been no published research studies on Google Scholar Citations metrics in the context of Pakistani LIS scholars as a whole.