Abstract

Researchers’ participation in online RIMSsThis article examined how researchers participated in research information management systems (RIMSs), their motivations for participation, and their priorities for those motivations. Profile maintenance, question-answering, and endorsement activities were used to define three cumulatively increasing levels of participation: Readers, Record Managers, and Community Members. Junior researchers were more engaged in RIMSs than were senior researchers. Postdocs had significantly higher odds of endorsing other researchers for skills and being categorized as Community Members than did full and associate professors. Assistant professors were significantly more likely to be Record Managers than were members of any other seniority categories. Finally, researchers from the life sciences showed a significantly higher propensity for being Community Members than Readers and Record Managers when compared with researchers from engineering and the physical sciences, respectively.Researchers’ motivations to participate in RIMSsWhen performing activities, researchers were motivated by the desire to share scholarship, feel competent, experience a sense of enjoyment, improve their status, and build ties with other members of the community. Moreover, when researchers performed activities that directly benefited other members of a RIMS, they assigned higher priorities to intrinsic motivations, such as perceived self-efficacy, enjoyment, and building community ties. Researchers at different stages of their academic careers and disciplines ranked some of the motivations for engaging with RIMSs differently. The general model of research participation in RIMSs; the relationships among RIMS activities; the motivation scales for activities; and the activity, seniority, and discipline-specific priorities for the motivations developed by this study provide the foundation for a framework for researcher participation in RIMSs. This framework can be used by RIMSs and institutional repositories to develop tools and design mechanisms to increase researchers’ engagement in RIMSs.

Highlights

  • Services that offer reliable and scalable determination and disambiguation of research identities are essential services that data repositories and digital libraries need to provide

  • Junior researchers were more engaged in research information management systems (RIMSs) than were senior researchers

  • The general model of research participation in RIMSs; the relationships among RIMS activities; the motivation scales for activities; and the activity, seniority, and discipline-specific priorities for the motivations developed by this study provide the foundation for a framework for researcher participation in RIMSs

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Services that offer reliable and scalable determination and disambiguation of research identities are essential services that data repositories and digital libraries need to provide. Publishers, libraries, universities, search engines, and content aggregators use many different research identity management systems, often referred to as research information management systems (RIMSs) or current research information systems (CRIS), with different data models, levels of coverage, and levels of quality (e.g., Florida ExpertNet, Google Scholar, ORCID, REACH NC, ResearchGate). The effective aggregation of data may require knowing community, discipline-based, and cultural differences in data and metadata quality requirements, rules, norms, and reference sources They may need the participation of subject specialists, librarians, and especially the researchers themselves in data curation activities to ensure the quality and reliability of research identity data [3, 6,7,8]. Haustein and Larivière [18] analyzed journal articles from four disciplines (i.e., biomedical research, clinical medicine, health, and psychology) in Mendeley and found that the majority of Mendeley users were junior researchers, such as doctoral students, postgraduate students, and postdoctoral researchers (aka postdocs)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call