STEM Librarians’ Presence on Academic Profile Websites

References

• Academia.edu. 2021. About academia. Accessed November 17, 2021. https://www.academia.edu/about.
   Google Scholar
• Aharony, N., J. Bar-Ilan, H. Julien, M. Benyamin-Kahana, and T. Cooper. 2019. Acceptance of altmetrics by LIS scholars: An exploratory study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 51 (3):843–51. doi:10.1177/0961000617742461.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akers, K. G., A. Sarkozy, W. Wu, and A. Slyman. 2016. ORCID author identifiers: A primer for librarians. Medical Reference Services Quarterly 35 (2):135–44. doi:10.1080/02763869.2016.1152139.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Association of Research Libraries. 2021. Who we are. Accessed November 18, 2021. https://www.arl.org/who-we-are/.
   Google Scholar
• Bond, S. 2017. Dear scholars, delete your account at academia.edu. Forbes. Accessed February 28, 2022. https://www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2017/01/23/dear-scholars-delete-your-account-at-academia-edu/?sh=4cffe7f42d62.
   Google Scholar
• Boudry, C., and M. Durand-Barthez. 2020. Use of author identifier services (ORCID, ResearcherID) and academic social aetworks (academia.edu, ResearchGate) by the researchers of the University of Caen Normandy (France): A case study. PLoS ONE 15 (9):1–16. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brigham, T. J. 2016. Online professional profiles: Health care and library researchers show off their work. Medical Reference Services Quarterly 35 (4):440–48. doi:10.1080/02763869.2016.1220760.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bruguera, C., M. Guitert, and T. Romeu. 2019. Social media and professional development: A systematic review. Research in Learning Technology 27. doi:10.25304/rlt.v27.2286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copiello, S., and P. Bonifaci. 2018. A few remarks on researchgate score and academic reputation. Scientometrics 114 (1):301–06. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2582-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delgado López-Cózar, E., E. Orduña-Malea, and A. Martín-Martín. 2019. Google Scholar as a data source for research assessment. In Springer handbook of science and technology indicators, ed. W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, and M. Thelwall, 95–127. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_4.
   Google Scholar
• Delgado López‐Cózar, E., N. Robinson‐García, and D. Torres‐Salinas. 2014. The Google Scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65 (3):446–54. doi:10.1002/asi.23056.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deng, S., J. Tong, Y. Lin, H. Li, and Y. Liu. 2019. Motivating scholars’ responses in academic social networking sites: An empirical study on researchgate Q&A behavior. Information Processing and Management 56 (6):102082. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102082.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Else, H. 2018. Major publishers sue ResearchGate over copyright infringement. Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-06945-6.
   Google Scholar
• Hailu, M., and J. Wu. 2021. The use of academic social networking sites in scholarly communication: Scoping review. Data and Information Management 5 (2):277–98. doi:10.2478/dim-2020-0050.
   Google Scholar
• Howard, J. 2013. Posting your latest article? You might have to take it down. Chronicle of Higher Education. Accessed February 28, 2022. https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest-article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, K. 2015. Exploring the ResearchGate Score as an academic metric : Reflections and implications for practice. In Quantifying and analysing scholarly communication on the web (ASCW’15). Oxford, England, June 30.
   Google Scholar
• Kjellberg, S., and J. Haider. 2018. Researchers’ online visibility: Tensions of visibility, trust and reputation. Online Information Review 43 (3):426–39. doi:10.1108/OIR-07-2017-0211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, C. 2018. Academic librarian status – A list of academic institutions in the United States and elswehere, sorted by the professional status of their librarians. Accessed February 01, 2021. https://academiclibrarianstatus.wordpress.com.
   Google Scholar
• Luo, T., and K. Hostetler. 2020. Making professional development more social: A systematic review of librarians’ professional development through social media. Journal of Academic Librarianship 46 (5):102193. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manca, S. 2018. Researchgate and academia.edu as networked socio-technical systems for scholarly communication: A literature review. Research in Learning Technology 26:1–16. doi:10.25304/rlt.v26.2008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martín-Martín, A., E. Orduna-Malea, and E. Delgado López-Cózar. 2018. Author-level metrics in the new academic profile platforms: The online behaviour of the bibliometrics community. Journal of Informetrics 12 (2):494–509. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2018.04.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mas-Bleda, A., M. Thelwall, K. Kousha, and I. F. Aguillo. 2014. Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? Scientometrics 101 (1):337–56. doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1345-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, S. 2020. Adoption and usage of academic social networks: A Japan case study. Scientometrics 122 (3):1751–67. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03345-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikki, S., M. Zygmuntowska, Y. L. Gjesdal, and H. A. A. Ruwehy. 2015. Digital presence of Norwegian scholars on academic network sites-where and who are they? PLoS ONE 10 (11). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142709.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montesi, M., I. V. Rodríguez, and F. B. dos Santos. 2019. Presencia, actividad, visibilidad e interdisciplinariedad del profesorado universitario de documentación en los medios sociales: Una perspectiva de género. Revista Española de Documentación Científica 42 (4):246. doi:10.3989/redc.2019.4.1640.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, M., and N. Eichenlaub. 2018. ORCID ids in the open knowledge era. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 11057 LNCS:308–11. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00066-0_29.
   Google Scholar
• ORCiD. 2018. Collect & connect – Improved and updated! Accessed November 16, 2021. https://info.orcid.org/collect-connect-improved-and-updated/.
   Google Scholar
• ORCiD. 2021a. ORCID member organizations. Accesed November 25, 2021. https://orcid.org/members.
   Google Scholar
• ORCiD. 2021b. ORCID statistics. Accessed November 26, 2021. https://orcid.org/statistics.
   Google Scholar
• Orduna-Malea, E., A. Martín-Martín, M. Thelwall, and E. Delgado López-Cózar. 2017. Do ResearchGate scores create ghost academic reputations? Scientometrics 112 (1):443–60. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2396-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortega, J. L. 2015. Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Information Review 39 (4):520–36. doi:10.1108/OIR-03-2015-0093.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortega, J. L. 2017. Toward a homogenization of academic social sites: A longitudinal study of profiles in Academia.Edu, Google Scholar Citations and ResearchGate. Online Information Review 41 (6):812–25. doi:10.1108/OIR-01-2016-0012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radford, M. L., V. Kitzie, S. Mikitish, D. Floegel, G. P. Radford, and L. S. Connaway. 2020. “People are reading your work,” scholarly identity and social networking sites. Journal of Documentation 76 (6):1233–60. doi:10.1108/JD-04-2019-0074.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed, K., D. McFarland, and R. Croft. 2016. Laying the groundwork for a new library service: Scholar-practitioner & graduate student attitudes toward altmetrics and the curation of online profiles. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 11 (2):87–96. doi:10.18438/B8J047.
   Google Scholar
• ResearchGate. 2021a. About us. Accessded November 16, 2021. https://www.researchgate.net/about.
   Google Scholar
• ResearchGate. 2021b. RG Score. Accessed November 16, 2021. https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/RG+Score.
   Google Scholar
• Shrivastava, R., and P. Mahajan. 2017. An altmetric analysis of ResearchGate profiles of physics researchers: A study of University of Delhi (India). Performance Measurement and Metrics 18 (1):52–66. doi:10.1108/PMM-07-2016-0033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siso-Calvo, B., and R. Arquero-Avilés. 2020. Plataformas digitales y reputación académica : Análisis del área de biblioteconomía y documentación en España. Ibersid 14 (1):69–77. doi:10.54886/ibersid.v14i1.4692.
   Google Scholar
• Tran, C. Y., and J. A. Lyon. 2017. Faculty use of author identifiers and researcher networking tools. College and Research Libraries 78 (2):171–82. doi:10.5860/crl.78.2.171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Noorden, R. 2014. Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature 512 (7513):126–29. doi:10.1038/512126a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward, J., W. Bejarano, and A. Dudás. 2015. Scholarly social media profiles and libraries: A review. LIBER Quarterly 24 (4):174–204. doi:10.18352/lq.9958.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, L., and C. Li. 2020. Investigating science researchers’ presence on academic profile websites: A case study of a Canadian research university. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 2020 (95):1–16. doi:10.29173/istl51.
   Google Scholar