Academic social networking sites. Comparative analysis of ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Mendeley and Zotero
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-03-2017-0012 |
| Pages | 298-316 |
| Date | 08 May 2017 |
| Published date | 08 May 2017 |
| Author | Raj Kumar Bhardwaj |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Librarianship/library management,Library & information services |
Academic social networking sites
Comparative analysis of ResearchGate,
Academia.edu, Mendeley and Zotero
Raj Kumar Bhardwaj
Library, St. Stephen’s College, University of Delhi, Delhi, India
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to compare four popular academic social networking sites (ASNSs),
namely, ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Mendeley and Zotero.
Design/methodology/approach –Evaluation method has been used with the help of checklist covering
various features of ASNSs. A structured checklist has been prepared to compare four popular ASNSs,
comprising 198 dichotomous questions divided into 12 broad categories.
Findings –The study found that performance of ASNSs using the latest features and services is not up to
the mark, and none of the site is rated as “Excellent”. The sites lack in incorporation of session lters; output
features; privacy settings and text display; and search and browsing elds. Availability of bibilographic
features and general features is poor in these sites. Further, altmetrics and analytics features are not
incorporated properly. User interface of the sites need to improve to draw researchers to use them. The study
report reveals that ResearchGate scored the highest, 61.1 per cent points, and was ranked “above average”,
followed by Academia.edu with 48.0 per cent and Mendeley with 43.9 per cent are ranked “average”. However,
the Zotero (38.9 per cent) was ranked “below average”.
Practical implications –Accreditation agencies can identify suitable sites in the evaluation of
institutions’ research output. Further, students and faculty members can choose the site suiting their needs.
Library and information science professionals can use the checklist to impart training to the academic
community which can help fostering research and development activities.
Originality/value –The study identies features that ought to be available in a model ASNS. These
features are categorized into 12 broad categories. The ndings can also be used by developers of the sites to
enhance functionalities. Institutions can choose suitable sites while collaborating with other institutions.
Keywords Mendeley, Social networking sites, ResearchGate, Zotero, Academia.edu,
Altmetrics features
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Social media usage has been growing rapidly among the academic community, but its
impact on education and research is not so clear. Publishers’ agenda to monetize information
blocks ow of knowledge and impedes free exchange of ideas (Roach and Gainer, 2013;
Beach et al., 2007). Academic social networking sites (ASNSs) counter such problems and
provide several means to connect researchers, allowing them to share valuable data and
publications which are otherwise difcult to access (Veletsianos, 2013). Academic fraternity
uses social media to craft online presence and to collaborate with peers (Gruzd and Goertzen,
2013). The scholarship of social media in higher education is largely focused on the optimal
utilization of networked resources. ASNSs facilitate users to organize, create proles, display
research work and connect with peers having similar research interests (Mangan, 2012).
ASNSs provide a platform to users to share research interests and questions related to
research, and help to boost achievements and compete with peers for research awards
(Nentwich and Konig, 2014;Bik and Goldstein, 2013). In predatory open access journals,
author bears the cost of the paper, while in ASNSs, the cost of publication relies on
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2398-5348.htm
ILS
118,5/6
298
Received 4 March 2017
Revised 6 May 2017
19 June 2017
Accepted 19 June 2017
Informationand Learning Science
Vol.118 No. 5/6, 2017
pp.298-316
©Emerald Publishing Limited
2398-5348
DOI 10.1108/ILS-03-2017-0012
advertisers and investors. Some ASNSs specically relevant to the academic community are
ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Mendeley, Zotero (Willinsky, 2006;Beall, 2010). Many unique
attributes of these sites are not readily available to users. The present study attempts to
compare the four sites to help users choose the appropriate site suited to their requirements.
Furthermore, the study aims to assist in developing the features and services of the sites so
that more and more people can switch to these ASNSs. The metrics of these sites could also
be used in the research evaluation of scientists. Prior to incorporating these metrics in the
assessment of the academic community, it is important to evaluate the features and services
offered by these sites.
2. Review of literature
Adoption of academic social media is evolving at a fast pace. Therefore, libraries should keep
themselves abreast of the features and services provided by these sites. Library and
information centres should take a lead role to promote the use of the ASNSs. Several studies
were conducted to understand the academic usage of such sites. Williams and Woodacre
(2016) observed that studying the characteristics and utilities of academic social networks is
most essential. As of now, practical means are not readily available to the academic
fraternity to identify, detail and compare the unique attributes of academic social networks.
Ortega (2015) studied the differences based on disciplines in the use of several ASNSs, using
a data set of 6,132 researchers’ proles, classied into eight major disciplines of Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Cientícas (CSIC) (Spanish National Research Council). The
study found that Academia.edu is widely used by humanists and social scientists, whereas
ResearchGate is popular among biologists. Differences based on disciplines are apparent in
every ASNS. The study also observed that users from humanities and social sciences, and
natural resources are more active in using the sites compared to biologists. Jordan (2014)
studied the structure of ASNSs and observed that:
[…] junior academics are more active users of the sites, agreeing to a greater extent with the
perceived benets, yet having fewer connections and occupying a more peripheral position in the
network.
Mikki et al. (2015) compared the proles of researchers of the University of Bergen on ve
sites and found that 37 per cent of the researchers have proles in at least one ASNS. The
highest prevalence was observed in Faculty of Psychology and Faculty of Social Sciences
(⬎40 per cent). Women were unrepresented; presence of professors and doctorate students
was found the highest.
In a survey by the journal Nature,Van Noorden (2014) found that ResearchGate is widely
known. More than 88 per cent of scientists and engineers stated that they were aware of it,
while 29 per cent of scientists in the survey were familiar with Academia.edu, but just 5 per
cent visited regularly. In total, 48 per cent of scientists in the survey were aware about
Mendeley and 8 per cent were regular visitors. Despite the overwhelming response of the
academic community to the use of ASNSs, it is not clear whether the engagement is
productive or it is just a passing fancy. Megwalu (2015) revealed that compared to physicists,
linguists and sociologists were more procient in using Academia.edu and other ASN sites.
The study found that differences in use across disciplines were inuenced by variations in
the social and cultural practices of the disciplines. Vasquez et al. (2015) reported that ASNSs
offered a combination of tools to support research activities, collaboration and networking,
but maintaining multiple proles on various sites could be a time-consuming process.
Study by Shohrowardhy and Hasan (2014) in Bangladesh found that social
networking sites had a positive impact on the academic purpose of students. Further, he
recommended that policy makers in Bangladesh should draft a policy pertaining to the
299
Academic
social
networking
sites
To continue reading
Request your trial