Abstract
INTRODUCTION Looking for ways to increase deposits into their institutional repository (IR), researchers at one institution started to mine academic social networks (ASNs) (namely, ResearchGate and Academia.edu) to discover which researchers might already be predisposed to providing open access to their work. METHODS Researchers compared the numbers of institutionally affiliated faculty members appearing in the ASNs to those appearing in their institutional repositories. They also looked at how these numbers compared to overall faculty numbers. RESULTS Faculty were much more likely to have deposited their work in an ASN than in the IR. However, the number of researchers who deposited in both the IR and at least one ASN exceeded that of those who deposited their research solely in an ASN. Unexpected findings occurred as well, such as numerous false or unverified accounts claiming affiliation with the institution. ResearchGate was found to be the favored ASN at this particular institution. DISCUSSION The results of this study confirm earlier studies’ findings indicating that those researchers who are willing to make their research open access are more disposed to do so over multiple channels, showing that those who already self-archive elsewhere are prime targets for inclusion in the IR. CONCLUSION Rather than seeing ASNs as a threat to IRs, they may be seen as a potential site of identifying likely contributors to the IR.
Highlights
Looking for ways to increase deposits into their institutional repository (IR), researchers at one institution started to mine academic social networks (ASNs) to discover which researchers might already be predisposed to providing open access to their work
Our work supports Lovett et al.’s 2017 finding that those more likely to place articles on academic social networks are more likely to place them in the institutional repository; they are open to making their work accessible, and the two OA vehicles are not mutually exclusive
At the University of Lethbridge ResearchGate proved more popular than Academia.edu for posting research output, and both were more popular than the IR
Summary
Looking for ways to increase deposits into their institutional repository (IR), researchers at one institution started to mine academic social networks (ASNs) (namely, ResearchGate and Academia.edu) to discover which researchers might already be predisposed to providing open access to their work. Academic social networks (ASNs) have burst onto the scene, gathering a large number of users in a short number of years. They are loved by some, and hated by others; they can be seen as competition for an institution’s repository, or as a holding place for the full-text version of citations found elsewhere online. They are either a great way to increase one’s reach, or an insidious waste of time. The submission and inclusion policy for the U of L IR, along with additional information, is available at https://opus.uleth.ca/
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