본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Scholarly Reputation Building: How does ResearchGate Fare?

2

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류문헌정보학

초록

Employing a newly developed conceptual framework of the tasks and activities that comprise today’s digital scholarly undertaking and their potentially reputation building, maintaining and enhancing components, the efforts of ResearchGate in supporting scholars’ reputation building endeavours were put under the microscope. Not unexpectedly, RG performs well in regard to basic research activities. Clearly, too, with ten metrics at its disposal, RG is in a league of its own when it comes to monitoring individual research reputation. Where RG falls down is regarding scholarly activities that do not concern pure research and so especially teaching. Its claim to have created a new way of measuring reputation is only partially true because if it wants to do so genuinely then it needs to extend the range of scholarly activities covered. RG also falls short in informing members as to the nature and changes to its service and of embracing new actors, such as citizen scientists and amateur experts.

Abstract

Employing a newly developed conceptual framework of the tasks and activities that comprise today’s digital scholarly undertaking and their potentially reputation building, maintaining and enhancing components, the efforts of ResearchGate in supporting scholars’ reputation building endeavours were put under the microscope. Not unexpectedly, RG performs well in regard to basic research activities. Clearly, too, with ten metrics at its disposal, RG is in a league of its own when it comes to monitoring individual research reputation. Where RG falls down is regarding scholarly activities that do not concern pure research and so especially teaching. Its claim to have created a new way of measuring reputation is only partially true because if it wants to do so genuinely then it needs to extend the range of scholarly activities covered. RG also falls short in informing members as to the nature and changes to its service and of embracing new actors, such as citizen scientists and amateur experts.

참고문헌 (67)

  1. Alheyasat, O., "Examination expertise sharing in academic social networks using graphs : The case of ResearchGate", Contemporary Engineering Sciences, 8(3), pp.137~151 (2015)
  2. Altbach, P. G., "Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution" (2009), Boston College Center for International Higher Education
  3. Becher, T., "Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines" (2001), Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press
  4. Boyer, E. L., "Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. A special report of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching" (1990), Jossey-Bass
  5. Braxton, J. M., "Institutionalizing a broader view of scholarship through boyer’s four domains. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report" (2002), Jossey-Bass
  6. "Interdisciplinary research - Findings from the Technology Enhanced Learning Research Programme" (2010)[URL]
  7. "ResearchGate, heal thyself … please? (updated)" (2015)[URL]
  8. Egghe, L., "Fallout and miss in journal peer review", Journal of Documentation, 69(3), pp.411~416 (2013)
  9. Fitzpatrick, K., "Peer-to-peer review and the future of scholarly authority", Social Epistemology, 24(3), pp.161~179 (2010)
  10. Ford, E., "Defining and characterizing open peer review : A review of the literature", Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(4), pp.311~326 (2013)
  11. Garnett, F., "Towards a framework for co-creating open scholarship", Research in Learning Technology, 19 (2012)
  12. Goodfellow, R., "Literacy in the Digital University: Critical Perspectives on Learning, Scholarship and Technology", pp.67~78 (2013)
  13. Hagstrom, W. O., "Competition in science", American Sociological Review, pp.1~18 (1974)
  14. "Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: An exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines" (2010)[URL]
  15. Hsieh, D., "Organization and role of international collaboration in research production", Doctor, pp.2013
  16. Irwin, A., "Handbook of public communication of science and technology", pp.199~212 (2008), Routledge
  17. Jamali, H. R., "Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms", Research Evaluation, 5(1), pp.37~49 (2015)
  18. Jordan, K., "Exploring the ResearchGate score as an academic metric: Reflections and implications for practice", Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web (ASCW’15) (2015)
  19. Kraker, P., "A critical look at the ResearchGate score as a measure of scientific reputation", Proceedings of the Quantifying and Analysing Scholarly Communication on the Web workshop (ASCW’15), Web Science conference 2015 (2015)
  20. Meadows, A. J., "The problem of refereeing", The Scientific Journal, pp.104~111 (1979)
  21. Meadows, A. J., "Communicating research" (1998), Academic Press
  22. Merton, R. K., "The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations" (1973), The University of Chicago
  23. Mulligan, A., "Peer review in a changing world : An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers", Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), pp.132~161 (2013)
  24. Mulligan, A., "The effect of the internet on researcher motivations, behaviour and attitudes", Journal of Documentation, 67(2), pp.290~311 (2011)
  25. Nentwich, M., "Opening science", pp.107~124 (2014), Springer International Publishing
  26. Nicholas, D., "Analysis of emerging reputation mechanisms for scholars", Analysis of Emerging Reputation and Funding Mechanisms in the Context of Open Science, 2, pp.3~72 (2015)
  27. "Emerging reputation mechanisms for scholars:A literature-based theoretical framework of scholarly activities and a state-of-the-art appraisal of the social networking services used by scholars, to build, maintain and showcase their reputation. European Commission" (2015)[URL]
  28. David Nicholas, "New ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation", Learned Publishing, 28(3), pp.169~183 (2015), Wiley-Blackwell[DOI]
  29. "How scientists engage the public" (2015)[URL]
  30. "ResearchGATE blog" (2008)[URL]
  31. "Sort groups by activity" (2009)[URL]
  32. "Topics: The new way to ask, share and discuss" (2011)[URL]
  33. "Projects: A new tool. Optimized for collaboration" (2012)[URL]
  34. "Why RG “groups” were converted to “topics” without asking permission of the authors? Why RG topics lost the list of founders? Why RG stuff moderate scientific content anonymously and without explanations?" (2012)[URL]
  35. "ResearchGate Introduces the RG Score: A New Way to Measure Scientific Reputation" (2012)[URL]
  36. "How do we get entered in Projects?" (2014)[URL]
  37. "How to create private or public groups in researchgate?" (2014)[URL]
  38. "Where are ResearchGate groups?" (2014)[URL]
  39. "Collaborative Projects" (2015)[URL]
  40. "Related researchers" (2015)[URL]
  41. "ResearchGate" (2015)[URL]
  42. "Trending publications" (2015)[URL]
  43. "Commenting and highlighting" (2015)[URL]
  44. "Frequently asked questions: I’ve discovered a profile in my name. What can I do?" (2015)[URL]
  45. "New feature: Signing in using your Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter or Friendfeed account" (2015)[URL]
  46. "ResearchFeed Part 3: Connectors" (2015)[URL]
  47. "Sharing questions" (2015)[URL]
  48. "Getting started" (2015)[URL]
  49. "Signing up for ResearchGate" (2015)[URL]
  50. "Reviewing publications" (2015)[URL]
  51. "Introducing Reads" (2015)[URL]
  52. "2016 factsheet" (2016)[URL]
  53. "Communicating knowledge: How and why UK researchers publish and disseminate their findings" (2009)[URL]
  54. Rowlands, I., "Scholarly communication in the digital environment:What do authors want?", Learned Publishing, 17(4), pp.261~273 (2004)
  55. Thelwall, M., "ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship?", Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), pp.876~889 (2015)
  56. "ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size and impact. Manuscript submitted for publication" (2016)[URL]
  57. Van Dalen, H. P., "Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture : A worldwide survey", Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), pp.1282~1293 (2012)
  58. Ward, J., "Scholarly social media profiles and libraries: A review", Liber Quarterly, 24(4) (2015)
  59. Peer review: Benefits, perceptions and alternatives, "Ware, M.", Publishing Research Consortium, ~, pp.Publishing Research Consortium, 4 (2008)
  60. Weller, A. C., "Editorial peer review for electronic journals : Current issues and emerging models", Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), pp.1328~1333 (2000)
  61. "The nature of scholarship. In: The digital scholar: How technology is transforming academic practice" (2011)[URL]
  62. Winter, R., "Interview with Ijad Madisch on"The future of publishing and discussing research"", Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57(2), pp.135~138 (2015)
  63. Wuchty, S., "The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge", Science, 316(5827), pp.1036~1039 (2007)
  64. Yu, M. C., "ResearchGate : An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers?", Computers in Human Behavior, 55, pp.1001~1006 (2016)
  65. Zuckerman, H., "Patterns of evaluation in science : Institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system", Minerva, 9(1), pp.66~100 (1971)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (5건)