Content uploaded by Annamaria Silvana de Rosa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Annamaria Silvana de Rosa on Mar 04, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Annamaria Silvana de Rosa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Annamaria Silvana de Rosa on Mar 03, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sharing the Passion for Learning
Sharing the Passion for Learning
CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGS
CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGS
CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGS
CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGS
11th International
Technology, Education and
Development Conference
11th International
Technology, Education and
Development Conference
6-8 March, 2017
Valencia (Spain)
6-8 March, 2017
Valencia (Spain)
CONFERENCE
PROCEEDINGS
11th International
Technology, Education and
Development Conference
6-8 March, 2017
Valencia (Spain)
Published by
IATED Academy
iated.org
INTED2017 Proceedings
11th International Technology, Education and Development Conference
March 6th-8th, 2017 — Valencia, Spain
Edited by
L. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, I. Candel Torres
IATED Academy
ISBN: 978-84-617-8491-2
ISSN: 2340-1079
Depósito Legal: V-369-2017
Book cover designed by
J.L. Bernat
All rights reserved. Copyright © 2017, IATED
The papers published in these proceedings reflect the views only of the authors. The
publisher cannot be held responsible for the validity or use of the information therein
contained.
PROFILING AUTHORS BASED ON THEIR PARTICIPATION IN
ACADEMIC SOCIAL NETWORKS
Annamaria Silvana de Rosa, Laura Dryjanska, Elena Bocci
European/International Joint PhD in S.R. & C. Research Centre and Multimedia Lab –
Sapienza University of Rome (ITALY)
Abstract
Academic Social Networks (ASNs) are online-platforms - freely subscribed by scholars and students
at various levels of expertise/academic career - that profile the professional identity/role associated
with their institutions/activities, as well facilitate publications up/downloading, research interest
exchanges, citations and contacts analytics. Among main ASNs related practices, Nentwich and König
(2013) [1] enlist communication, cooperation, public relations, self-marketing, e-teaching and job
exchange.
This contribution concentrates on ResearchGate and Academia.edu (“two of the more popular” ASNs:
Ovadia, 2014) [2], as well as Mendeley, a citation management product including social media
features.
While in previous contribution de Rosa et al (2016) [3] have examined the role of the three ASNs in
disseminating the Social Representations literature, detecting the scientific products as dependent
variable, this paper focuses on authors of publications in this field who participate in at least one of the
above-mentioned ASNs. Taking into account Social Representation as supra-disciplinary theory of
transversal interest for social sciences and rooted in the knowledge communication, this paper
presents results dated November 2016 detecting authors present in ResearchGate (f=2676),
Academia.edu (f=2465) and Mendeley (f=623) compared to the worldwide universe of 6683 authors
filed in the SoReCom ”A.S. de Rosa” @-library (de Rosa, 2015) [4], the most comprehensive digital
repository specialised in this scientific field, including more than 10,000 bibliographic references.
Information concerning authors’ institutional affiliations/countries served for the geo-mapping of the
geo-cultural positioning. In brief – although the use of ASNs, especially among younger generations of
scholars, becomes a common practice in the field of Social Representations, as a tool for
bookmarking/downloading full-text publications – our analysis provides empirical evidence that
40,04% of all authors present in the SoReCom ”A.S. de Rosa” @-library are present in the most used
ASN (ResearchGate), 36.88% in Academica.edu, 9.32% in Mendeley, while the authors present in at
least one of the three ASNs are 3668 constituting 54.89% of the total, and those in all three ASNs at
the same time equal 392 (only 5.87%). These results encourage the promotion of the new platform
SoReCom ”A.S. de Rosa” @-library as open access academic networking tool and not only as
scientific documentation repository.
Keywords: academic social networks, social representations, SoReCom ”A.S. de Rosa” @-library,
ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Mendeley.
1 INTRODUCTION
The use of academic social networks (ASNs) differs across scholars active in diverse domains of
knowledge, disciplines, and even theories. This paper focuses on authors who have contributed to the
development and/or applied a specific theory in social sciences, the theory of social representations
(Moscovici, 1961/1976) [5], examining their presence in three specific ASNs: ResearchGate,
Academia.edu, and Mendeley. Initially, the concept of an ASN is introduced and explained in general,
subsequently the three examples are further described, emphasizing similarities and differences
between them. Then, the theory of social representations is briefly introduced, followed by the
description of the SoReCom ”A.S. de Rosa” @-library (de Rosa, 2015) [4] and meta-theoretical
analysis. The empirical findings concerning the number and geo-cultural mapping of the institutions of
authors constitute the main body of this research, closing with concise conclusions.
Proceedings of INTED2017 Conference
6th-8th March 2017, Valencia, Spain
ISBN: 978-84-617-8491-2
1061
1.1 Academic social networks
Academic social networks constitute online tools for millions of scholars and students (Mangan, 2012)
[6] that make it possible to share scientific publications by posting one’s own works and downloading
papers written by others. In order to benefit from this exchange, it is necessary to register an account
that includes personal information, in particular related to the institution where a person works or
studies. Following brief registration process, one can become either a passive user, just downloading
and requesting papers written by others, or an active user, also publishing his or her own research,
and in cases of some academic social networks, exchanging expertise, answering questions, posting
raw data, etc. Such initiatives are strongly encouraged by the system, which prompts users to be
active by sending them emails and, in some cases, pointing out the measurements of their research
impact. The existing research has taken into account the users of ASNs by concentrating on their
uptake among scholars in a specific institution (Madhusudhan, 2012) [7], in a bibliometric community
(Haustein, Peters, Bar-Ilan, Priem, Shema, & Terliesner, 2014) [8], and among readers of the Nature,
a flagship international scientific journal (Van Noorden, 2014) [9], to mention just a few examples.
There have also been some interesting efforts to examine how scholars use services offered by ASNs
in their daily work, which resulted in identifying three profiles of a heavy, targeted, and restricted user
(Kieslinger, 2015) [10]. Often, the focus has also been on the relevance of ASNs for the scholarly
evaluation of academicians, as discussed by Jamali, Nicholas and Herman (2015) [11].
Before proposing a comparison of usage of three specific ASNs featured in this paper, it is worthwhile
to present each one of them separately.
1.1.1 ResearchGate
ResearchGate (https://www.researchgate.net) is the largest worldwide ASN for scientists and
researchers, launched in 2008 for cooperation and exchange of scientific information (Thelwall &
Kousha, 2016) [12]. One third of the members are biologists and doctors, followed by computer,
chemists, physicists and researchers in the social sciences. Every day, an average of 2,000 scientists
sign up: numbers keep growing exponentially. The project started from an intuition of the founder, Ijad
Madisch, a virologist. During an internship at Massachusetts General Hospital, under the pretext of
circulating notes among colleagues in the laboratory, he has developed an idea that has transformed
the diffusion model of the scientific material. With Sören Hofmayer and Horst Fickenscher, Madish has
launched an interactive platform where one can communicate and leave comments, share and
discuss scientific topics, publish and download academic papers, actively participate in blogs and
events, or even find new job opportunities and postgraduate programs. ResearchGate possesses 10
reputational mechanisms, which are the subject of evaluation employing desk research, expert
evaluation, and an analysis of members (Nicholas, Clark & Herman, 2016) [13], although their
reliability has been recently questioned (Memon, 2016) [14].
1.1.2 Academia.edu
Founded by a philosopher Richard Price in 2008, Academia.edu currently claims to have 46,519,210
subscribers (data reported on the https://www.academia.edu website as of January 9, 2017), while
attracting more than 36 million visitors per month. The platform can be used to share articles, monitor
their impact factor (average number of citations received in a particular year for an article published in
a scientific journal) and follow authors who are of one’s interest. Academia.edu participates in the
movement of the Open Science, which through the use of the latest digital technologies and social
networks promotes an open approach to the dissemination of scientific production results (Niyazov et
al, 2016) [15]. Globally, it allows managing documents through updatable lists of publications (either
manually or automatically), or through the semantic search for documents based on content analysis.
Moreover, it allows creating groups united by a specific research interest. A growing number of
authors are using Academia.edu to share their publications and maintain professional contacts, thus
“going social” (Owens, 2014) [16].
1.1.3 Mendeley
Aside from being an ASN, Mendeley (https://www.mendeley.com ) can be described primarily as an
online reference manager and social-bookmarking site, a personal information management tool that
some researchers use in their daily activities (Mohammadi & Thelwall, 2014) [17]. Founded in 2008 by
three PhD trainees, Victor Henning, Jan Reichelt, and Paul Foeckler, studying in Germany, it has been
sold to an academic publisher Elsevier in 2013, connecting and switching between different products
(like ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Engineering Village) and integrating different services for users.
1062
Based on the user information, the system highlights citations of articles relevant to his or her study
area, allowing not only to discover useful publications, but also to get in touch with others engaged in
similar research and explore their libraries. The website can also be searched for items such as
persons; moreover, the system is able to import contacts from the user’s email address, sending
invitations to join the network or make suggestions on the basis of disciplinary interests. The
interaction between users takes place mainly through the sharing of citations, performed by the group
management, but also sharing and discovering data sets and job opportunities. The groups are an
easy way to collaborate with colleagues by creating a collection of shared documents. The groups
allow members to assemble a list of items and share annotations. Most readers of Clinical Medicine,
Engineering and Technology, Social Science, Physics, and Chemistry articles in Mendeley are young
researchers, PhD trainees and postdoctoral fellows, according to Mohammadi and colleagues (2016)
[18]. Mendeley stands out as the only ASN among the three under scrutiny that offers a desktop
version that can be downloaded on a personal computer and synchronized with the online content,
thus allowing for an offline access (Patak, Naim, & Hidayat. 2016) [19].
1.2 Theory of social representations: a specific knowledge domain in the ASN
Aimed at profiling authors belonging to specific worldwide community of scientists, this paper
concentrates on publications in a specific domain of knowledge: the theory of social representations.
The theory of social representations deals with explaining how people reconstruct the social reality in
order to control and adapt it, take action and share it with others. It belongs to social sciences,
constituting a point particular of intersection between different disciplines, in particular from the optic of
social psychology, sociology and communication studies. However it is open to the contribution of
several disciplines from humanities to natural sciences, due to its interest for many socially relevant
study objects in cross-cuttiing thematic domains. As an expression of human and social relations,
social representations are involved in the development of many aspects of daily thinking and provide
an effective explanation for the origin and evolution of common sense. The social representations
express, therefore, the "construction" of a social object, editable and reinterpretable by an actor who
forms a part of a community. They play an essential role in communication and cannot exist without it,
at the same time enabling communication and being generated, transmitted, and transformed through
it. Also known as theories of common sense, social representations can be considered as organizing
principles of the symbolic relationships between individuals and groups, as different members of a
group share common knowledge on the object to which they refer in the course of conversations. The
first book that lays out the tenets of the theory of social representations is entitled "La Psychanalyse,
son image et son public", based on a PhD thesis of the author, Serge Moscovici (1961/1976) [5] [22].
Starting from the study of the diffusion of psychoanalysis in French culture, Moscovici postulates the
need for social psychology to deal with the language of daily conversation that constructs social
reality. The author's aim was to develop a new theory of knowledge, able to draw from various
theoretical models and approaches. He defines social representations as a series of concepts,
assertions and explanations that arise in the everyday life through interpersonal communications,
which can be seen by society as the equivalent of myths and beliefs in traditional societies, or even
considered a contemporary version of common sense (Moscovici, 1989). Moscovici considers them as
cognitive systems, with their own logic and language through which individuals in society build social
reality, thus enabling one to speak of a socially developed and shared knowledge, which contributes to
the construction of social reality, designating a form of social thought. The vast body of theory
incarnates ideas into experiences and interactions in the present, linking knowledge and skills to real
life. In this perspective, social representations are relatively dynamic, mobile, circulating and formed
with ease, beyond opinions, attitudes or stereotypes. During more than a half of century, the theory of
social representations has been developed by generations of scholars all over the world [22].
1.2.1 SoReCom ”A.S. de Rosa” @-library
The SoReCom ”A.S. de Rosa” @-library provides an integrated digital tool for scientific
documentation, networking and training purposes in the supra-disciplinary field of Social
Representations and Communication, stimulating a rich and ever-growing research and learning
environment that is advantageous to research team members, trainees and experts alike (de Rosa,
2014) [21]. This multipurpose digital environment of interrelated relational databases has been
conceived in the logic of the semantic web, including multiple web interfaces aimed to integrate
documentation services with networking and research training [6]. Concerning documentation, the
comprehensive bibliographical repository of the literature on social representations, currently includes
more than 10,000 bibliographic entries. This growing collection of references contains the classic
1063
bibliographic details, but also the author’s and co-authors institutional affiliation and its
Country/Continent, the bibliometric indexes (Impact Factor and SJR,) and other useful information for
geo-mapping the diffusion and impact of the theory over the world. Moreover, a meta-theoretical
repository of the literature on social representations, includes meta-theoretically analysed articles and
book chapters, using the on-line grid for the “meta-theoretical analyses” and the guidelines developed
by A.S. de Rosa in 1994 and subsequently updated to reflect the developments in the field. In
addition, the intelligent @-Library holds a rich documentation of PDF texts, videos, audio-interviews
and multi-media scientific and training materials in the field of social representations. Advanced search
engine is hyper-linked with these repositories (also using as ontologies the categories of the very
detailed “meta-theoretical analysis” grid).
1.2.2 Meta-theoretical analysis and its research tool integrated in the SoReCom ”A.S. de
Rosa” @-library
The meta-theoretical analysis is based on a grid organized on two levels, which may be used for
different purposes and grades of complexity. The research presented in this contribution draws on the
first level that aims at reviewing literature in a purely descriptive manner with a traditional bibliographic
approach. It concentrates on organizing information on authors and the countries and continents in
which their institutions are located. Besides that, the first level of analysis also includes years of
publication, whether the publication is a journal or book, language of the publication, etc. This kind of
information is commonly used to map the diffusion of the Social Representation theory and its
development over time and space, in a sort of epidemiology of knowledge (de Rosa, 2013) [22]. At a
more specifically meta-theoretical level of analysis, the grid is organized in five main areas: 1)
Theoretical reference to Social Representations constructs monitors whether a publication refers to
Social Representations Theory in a very generic way or addresses specific paradigmatic elements of
the theory (i.e. the genesis, processes, functions, structure, transmission, and transformation of Social
Representations) or whether the contribution refers to the theory itself as an object of critical analysis
(meta-theory); 2) Theoretical reference to other constructs and theories identifies whether the
publication refers to other constructs, concepts and theories related to Social Representation as well
as the focus of the reference: integration, differentiation, comparison, replacement; 3) Thematic
analysis categorizes the contents of empirical contributions by identifying the general thematic areas
(i.e. health, environment, etc.) and the specific object of each study (i.e. AIDS, pollution, etc.), as well
the specific typology (closed, open, polemic) of the Social Representations; 4) Methodological profile
of each study (its research design, its location, its nature, instruments for data collection, channels
used as source of information, techniques for data analysis) and Characteristics of the selected
population (size of sample, variables considered, unit of analysis); 5) Paradigmatic coherence
between the theoretical assumptions and the methodological research design.
2 DATA SUBSET AND ANALYSIS
To profile authors who have published scientific contributions using the theory of social
representations, the list of 6683 persons has been extracted from the SoReCom ”A.S. de Rosa” @-
library, organized by publications. The list of authors included not only the first authors, but all persons
enlisted in each publication. Subsequently, the presence of each person in ASNs has been verified
and recorded, as of November 2016.
The data has been analysed using Tableau software, a commercial system for visualizing the contents
of databases, based on a specification language called VizQL (Heer et al, 2008) [23]. Its interface
includes a list of available database fields and a workspace in which users can select fields and drag
them onto shelves corresponding to visual encodings such as position, colour, shape, and size. The
data concerning the countries of authors’ institutions has been visualized on the world map, zooming
on each continent.
3 RESULTS AND THEIR DISCUSSION
Among 6683 authors who have published scientific outcome in the field of the theory of social
representations based on the bibliographic entries recorded in the SoReCom ”A.S. de Rosa” @-
library, 3668 are present in at least one of the three ASNs, constituting 54.89% of the total.
ResearchGate stands out as the most used ASN in the field, which includes 2676 persons that equals
40,04% of all authors are present in the database. Not very much lower is the registration in
Academia.edu, with 2465 persons that equals 36.88% in Academica.edu of all authors are present in
1064
the database. On the contrary, Mendeley’s users are much less numerous, amounting to 623 persons
that equals 9.32% of all authors present in the SoReCom ”A.S. de Rosa” @-library (see Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. The number of authors, contributing to social representation literature, registered in the 3 ASNs
There seems to be a clear preference for using only one, maximum two ASNs, as demonstrated by
the fact that only 392 authors (5.87% of the total) registered in all three of them, as of November 2016.
3.1 Author’s institution continent
This paper concentrates on the profiling of authors present in ASNs based on their institutional
affiliation. Therefore, it takes into account the location of a university or other entity where the person
works, regardless of his or her nationality. The first, more general level is the continent of the authors’
institutions. As demonstrated in Table 1, the distribution of authors’ institution continents is quite
similar in case of all three ASN, with the clear prevalence of Europe (slightly higher for Mendeley),
followed by Latin America and North America (higher for ResearchGate and Academica.edu).
Table 1. The frequencies distribution of authors’ institution continent in the three ASNs
Continent
ResearchGate
Academia.edu
Mendeley
Frequency
Frequency %
Frequency
Frequency %
Frequency
Frequency %
Europe
1509
56,39%
1331
53,97%
415
66,61%
Latin America
633
23,65%
632
25,63%
105
16,85%
North America
357
13,34%
331
13,42%
60
9,63%
Asia
93
3,48%
93
3,77%
29
4,65%
Australia & Oceania
61
2,28%
51
2,07%
9
1,44%
Africa
23
0,86%
28
1,14%
5
0,80%
Total
2676
100,00%
2465
100,00%
623
100,00%
The numbers reflect the overall dissemination of the theory of social representations, where
traditionally Europe emerges as the theory’s homeland with the highest number of publications,
followed by Latin America, the most fertilised scenario, and North-America and other continents (Asia,
Australia and Oceania, and Africa), as the new emerging scenarios.
1065
3.2 Author’s institution country
Profiling authors present in ASNs based on their institutional affiliation includes not only the continent
of where each institution is located, but also the country. Information about the country provides
significant insight about the geo-cultural context of where the research originated and what could have
prompted the author’s choice to use the theory of social representations. The following images were
obtained using the Tableau software.
It is interesting to note that the widest variety of institution countries (76) characterizes authors
registered in Academia.edu. In spite of the fact that ResearchGate has the highest overall number of
users, they belong to institutions located in 69 countries. Unsurprisingly, the variety of institution
countries concerning users registered in Mendeley appears as the lowest, with 58 countries, which still
represents a considerable diversity.
An overview of all authors’ institution countries worldwide is shown in Fig. 2, where it is possible to
observe that the two top countries are Brazil (f=349 for ResearchGate, f=316 for Academia.edu, f=55
for Mendeley) and France (f=349 for ResearchGate, f=296 for Academia.edu, f=92 for Mendeley).
Moreover, United Kingdom (f=243 for ResearchGate, f=243 for Academia.edu, f=65 for Mendeley),
United States (f=230 for ResearchGate, f=200 for Academia.edu, f=42 for Mendeley), and Italy (f=220
for ResearchGate, f=223 for Academia.edu, f=77 for Mendeley) stand out as countries with more than
200 authors with a profile on ResarchGate.
Fig. 2. Authors’ institution country by the three ASNs
Following the initial overview, the Tab. 2 below shows in detail the distribution of author’s participation
in the three ASNs for the countries with more than 100 persons are registered in ResearchGate and
Academia.edu. It is possible to observe the diverse country numbers for Mendeley, where the highest
number of authors belongs to institutions located in Europe, in particular France, Italy, and the United
Kingdom, which may be attributed to specific marketing efforts of presenting Mendeley and offering
assistance in national languages at large European universities, such as the Sapienza University of
Rome.
1066
Tab. 2. Top seven institution countries of authors with the most numerous participation in ASNs (>100)
Country name
ResearchGate
Academia.edu
Mendeley
Brazil
349
316
55
France
349
296
92
United Kingdom
243
243
65
United States
230
200
42
Italy
220
223
77
Spain
169
122
38
Canada
127
131
19
While the world map gives an overview, going into further details for each continent makes it possible
to see also countries where less authors come from, which nevertheless can be of great interest. Fig.
3 below demonstrates the situation in Europe concerning ASNs, where ResearchGate followed by
Academia.edu stand out as the most successful ASN in terms of attracting subscriptions of scholars.
Fig. 3. Authors’ institution countries in Europe by the three ASNs
Following Europe, Latin America boasts the highest number of authors, which also reflects the
situation concerning the development of the theory of social representations. As already mentioned,
Brazil plays a key role, followed by Argentina (where more authors belong to Academia.edu rather
than ResearchGate), Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Cuba, Puerto Rico,
Uruguay, Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Jamaica.
1067
Fig. 4. Authors’ institution countries in Latin America by the three ASNs
It is worthwhile to mention North America, where subscription to ASNs, especially ResearchGate and
Academia.edu, is quite widespread among scholars inspired by the theory of social representations.
United States (f=230 for ResearchGate, f=200 for Academia.edu, f=42 for Mendeley) and Canada
(f=127 for ResearchGate, f=131 for Academia.edu, f=19 for Mendeley) are shown in the Fig. 5 below.
Fig. 5. Authors’ institution countries in North America by the three ASNs
Finally, Asia, Australia, and Africa constitute emerging scenarios for the dissemination of the social
representation literature, and thus have been grouped together in Fig. 6, Fig. 7, and Fig. 8, since in
many countries in these continents there is only one scholar per country. While ResearchGate has so
1068
far been the most successful in penetrating this scientific community, Academia.edu appears as the
unique ASN used by a scholar in some African countries (Benin, Ivory Coast, Morocco, Senegal) and
Ukraine (Eastern Europe/Eurasia). Mendeley, which also functions as a reference management tool,
results as the least commonly used by scholars under scrutiny; it nevertheless plays a significant role,
in particular in some European countries.
Fig. 6. Authors’ institution countries in Asia by the three ASNs
Fig. 7. Authors’ institution countries in Australia and Oceania by the three ASNs
1069
Fig. 8. Authors’ institution countries in Africa by the three ASNs
4 CONCLUSIONS
This contribution has concentrated on profiles of authors inspired by the theory of social
representations, taking into account their subscription to three ASNs: ResearchGate, Academia.edu,
and Mendeley. One has to bear in mind that the nature of these data is very volatile, as situation
concerning the subscription to ASNs changes on a daily basis, with a clear growing trend among
scholars. Compared with the publications inspired by the theory of social representations present in
the SoReCom ”A.S. de Rosa” @-library, the number of references spread across the three ASNs is
much lower, even when adding all of them together (de Rosa et al, 2016) [3]. It is thus possible to
conclude that although useful, the ASNs are not as efficient as the digital repositories of the SoReCom
”A.S. de Rosa” @-library in gathering information, since there is no systematic effort aimed at saving
and categorizing all scientific production; in fact, what is available in the ASNs is only what the authors
decide to share. Likewise, the number of authors who register in the three ASNs: ResearchGate
(f=2676), Academia.edu (f=2465) and Mendeley (f=623), appears as much lower compared to the
worldwide universe of 6683 authors filed in the SoReCom ”A.S. de Rosa” @-library (de Rosa, 2015)
[4], confirming its position as the most comprehensive digital repository specialised in the scientific
field of the theory of social representations.
REFERENCES
[1] Nentwich, M., & König, R. (2014). Academia goes Facebook? The potential of social network
sites in the scholarly realm. In S. Bartling and S. Friesike (Eds), Opening science (pp. 107-124).
Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
[2] Ovadia, S. (2014). ResearchGate and Academia.edu: Academic social networks. Behavioral &
Social Sciences Librarian, 33(3), 165-169.
[3] de Rosa, A.S., Bocci, E., Dryjanska, L., & Borrelli, F. (2016). The Role of Academic Social
Networking in the Dissemination of the Social Representations Literature. In Inted 2016
Proceedings, (pp. 1051-1060). Madrid: INTED Publications.
1070
[4] de Rosa, A.S. (2015). The So.Re.Com. “A.S. de Rosa” @-library: a digital tool for integrating
scientific documentation, networking and training purposes in the supra-disciplinary field of
Social Representations and Communication. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.) Encyclopedia of
Information Science and Technology, (pp. 4938-4949). Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global.
[5] Moscovici, S. (1961/1976). Psychoanalyse: son image et son publique. Paris, France: Presses
Universitaires de France.
[6] Mangan, K. (2012). Social networks for academics proliferate, despite some doubts. Chronicle
of Higher Education, 58(35), 1–7.
[7] Madhusudhan, M. (2012). Use of social networking sites by research scholars of the University
of Delhi: A study. The International Information & Library Review, 44 (2), 100–113.
[8] Haustein, S., Peters, I., Bar-Ilan, J., Priem, J., Shema, H. & Terliesner, J. (2014). Coverage and
adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1145–
1163.
[9] Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: scientists and the social network. Nature,
512(7513), 126–129.
[10] Kieslinger, B. (2015). Academic peer pressure in social media: Experiences from the heavy, the
targeted and the restricted user. First Monday, 20(6). Retrieved on January 9, 2017 from
http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5854/4580
[11] Jamali, H. R., Nicholas, D. & Herman, E. (2016). Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the
role of emerging platforms and mechanisms. Research Evaluation, 25(1), 37-49.
[12] Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2016). ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size, and
impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Retrieved on
January 9, 2017 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23675/epdf
[13] Nicholas, D., Clark, D., & Herman, E. (2016). ResearchGate: Reputation uncovered. Learned
Publishing, 29(3), 173-182.
[14] Memon, A. R. (2016). ResearchGate is no longer reliable: leniency towards ghost journals may
decrease its impact on the scientific community. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association,
66, 1643-7.
[15] Niyazov, Y., Vogel, C., Price, R., Lund, B., Judd, D., Akil, A., & Shron, M. (2016). Open access
meets discoverability: Citations to articles posted to Academia. edu. PloS one, 11(2). Retrieved
on January 10, 2017 from
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148257&type=printable
[16] Owens, B. (2014). Academia gets social. The Lancet, 384(9957), 1834-1835.
[17] Mohammadi, E., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences
and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology, 65(8), 1627-1638.
[18] Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). Who reads research articles?
An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology, 66(9), 1832-1846.
[19] Patak, A. A., Naim, H. A., & Hidayat, R. (2016). Taking Mendeley as Multimedia-based
Application in Academic Writing. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and
Information Technology, 6(4), 557-560.
[20] Moscovici, S. (1989). Preface. In D. Jodelet (Ed.), Folies et representations sociales (5th ed.,
pp. 10-26). Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.
[21] de Rosa, A.S. (2014) The So.Re.Com. “A.S. de Rosa” @-Library: A Multi-Purpose Web-
Platform in the supra-disciplinary field of Social Representations and Communication. In Inted
2014 Proceedings, (pp. 7413-7423). Valencia, Spain: INTED Publications. Retrieved on
January 10, 2017 from
http://library.iated.org/?search_text=publication%3AINTED2014&adv_title=&rpp=25&adv_autho
rs=&adv_keywords=&orderby=page&refined_text=de+Rosa
1071
[22] de Rosa, A.S. (2013). Research fields in social representations: snapshot views from a meta-
theoretical analysis In A.S. de Rosa (Ed.), Social Representations in the "social arena", (pp. 89-
124). New York – London: Routledge.
[23] Heer, J., Mackinlay, J., Stolte, C., & Agrawala, M. (2008). Graphical histories for visualization:
Supporting analysis, communication, and evaluation. IEEE transactions on visualization and
computer graphics, 14(6), 1189-1196.
1072
