学术社交网络中iSchool成员用户结构与利用差异分析
|
摘要
[目的/意义]学术社交网络是开展知识交流与学术合作的重要平台,对iSchool成员用户的研究有助于图情学科研究人员合理利用学术社交网络。[方法/过程]本文以ResearchGate(RG)为例,采集61所iSchool成员机构的用户行为数据,依据被关注—关注比例指标进行用户细分,并从地区与层级角度对用户结构及利用差异进行比较分析。[结果/结论]地区角度,北美机构拥有较多明星型用户且注重展现与互动,亚太机构用户则更倾向于搜寻信息;层级角度,iCaucus机构用户更偏好学术资源分享,低层级机构用户跟踪获取学术资源的需求则更普遍。此外,iSchool成员机构能被RG指标进行良好的层级区分,学术影响力和层级领先的机构表现出更大的学术影响,因此应进一步合理拓展对学术社交网络的利用。
[Purpose/Significance]Academic social networking site is an important platform for knowledge exchange and academic cooperation.The study of iSchool members is helpful for information and library science researchers to make rational use of academic social networking site.[Method/Process]Taking ResearchGate(RG)as an example,this paper collected 4723 user behavior data of 61 iSchool members,subdivided them according to the follower-following ratio,and made a comparative analysis of user structure and utilization differences from the regional and hierarchical perspectives.[Result/Conclusion]From a regional perspective,North American institutions had more star users and focused on presentation and interaction,while Asia-Pacific institutions tend to search for information.From a hierarchical perspective,iCaucus institutional users prefered to share academic resources,while low-level institutional users followed the demand for academic resources more generally.In addition,iSchool members could be well classified by RG indicators.Academic influence and leading institutions would have greater academic impact,so the use of academic social networking site should be further rationally expanded.
[Purpose/Significance]Academic social networking site is an important platform for knowledge exchange and academic cooperation.The study of iSchool members is helpful for information and library science researchers to make rational use of academic social networking site.[Method/Process]Taking ResearchGate(RG)as an example,this paper collected 4723 user behavior data of 61 iSchool members,subdivided them according to the follower-following ratio,and made a comparative analysis of user structure and utilization differences from the regional and hierarchical perspectives.[Result/Conclusion]From a regional perspective,North American institutions had more star users and focused on presentation and interaction,while Asia-Pacific institutions tend to search for information.From a hierarchical perspective,iCaucus institutional users prefered to share academic resources,while low-level institutional users followed the demand for academic resources more generally.In addition,iSchool members could be well classified by RG indicators.Academic influence and leading institutions would have greater academic impact,so the use of academic social networking site should be further rationally expanded.
引文
[1]孙思阳,张海涛,任亮,等.虚拟学术社区用户知识交流行为研究综述[J].情报科学,2019,(1):171-176.
[2]段庆锋.我国科研人员在线学术社交模式实证研究:以科学网为例[J].情报杂志,2015,(9):97-101.
[3]Priem J,Taraborelli D,Groth P,et al.Altmetrics:A Manifesto[EB/OL].http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/,2018-11-20.
[4]耿斌,孙建军.在线学术社交平台的用户行为研究——以ResearchGate平台南京大学用户为例[J].图书与情报,2017,(5):47-53.
[5]Shrivastava R,Mahajan P.Relationship amongst ResearchGate Altmetric Indicators and Scopus Bibliometric Indicators:The Case of Panjab University Chandigarh(India)[J].New Library World,2015,(9):564-577.
[6]Onyancha O B.South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science-Social Media and Research:An Assessment of the Coverage of South African Universities in ResearchGate,Web of Science and the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities[J].South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science,2015,(1):8-20.
[7]Thelwall M,Kousha K.ResearchGate:Disseminating,Communicating,and Measuring Scholarship?[J].Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2015,(5):876-889.
[8]Min-Chun Yu,Yen-Chun,Jim Wu,et al.ResearchGate:An Effective Altmetric Indicator for Active Researchers?[J].Computers in Human Behavior,2016,(55):1001-1006.
[9]Leavitt A,Burchard E,Fisher D,et al.The Influentials:New Approaches for Analyzing Influence on Twitter[J].Web Ecology Project,2009,(2):1-18.
[10]Wu M X.Twitter Under Microscope[EB/OL].http://socialbeta.com/t/twitter-under-microscope.html,2018-11-20.
[11]Yan W,Yin Z,Bromfield W.Analyzing the Follower-followee Ratio to Determine User Characteristics and Institutional Participation Differences Among Research Universities on ResearchGate[J].Scientometrics,2018,(1):299-316.
[12]Hu C P,Yan W W,Hu Y.User Satisfaction Evaluation of Microblogging Services in China:Using the Tetra-class Model[J].Behaviour & Information Technology,2015,(1):17-32.
[13]Bosman J,Kramer B.Swiss Army Knives of Scholarly Communication-ResearchGate,Academia,Mendeley and Others[EB/OL].https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4290428.v1,2018-11-20.
[14]ResearchGate About[EB/OL].https://www.researchgate.net/about,2018-11-20.
[15]iSchools Directory[EB/OL].https://ischools.org/members/directory/,2018-11-20.
[16]iSchools Apply to Join[EB/OL].https://ischools.org/members/apply-to-join/,2018-11-20.
[17]吴婷.美国iCaucus院校图书馆新媒体服务研究[J].图书馆学研究,2016,(19):97-101.
[18]RG Score[EB/OL].https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/RG+Score,2018-11-20.
[19]Pallant J.SPSS Survival Manual:A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows(Version 12)[M].New South Wales,Australia:Allen & Unwin,2005:286-287.
[2]段庆锋.我国科研人员在线学术社交模式实证研究:以科学网为例[J].情报杂志,2015,(9):97-101.
[3]Priem J,Taraborelli D,Groth P,et al.Altmetrics:A Manifesto[EB/OL].http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/,2018-11-20.
[4]耿斌,孙建军.在线学术社交平台的用户行为研究——以ResearchGate平台南京大学用户为例[J].图书与情报,2017,(5):47-53.
[5]Shrivastava R,Mahajan P.Relationship amongst ResearchGate Altmetric Indicators and Scopus Bibliometric Indicators:The Case of Panjab University Chandigarh(India)[J].New Library World,2015,(9):564-577.
[6]Onyancha O B.South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science-Social Media and Research:An Assessment of the Coverage of South African Universities in ResearchGate,Web of Science and the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities[J].South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science,2015,(1):8-20.
[7]Thelwall M,Kousha K.ResearchGate:Disseminating,Communicating,and Measuring Scholarship?[J].Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,2015,(5):876-889.
[8]Min-Chun Yu,Yen-Chun,Jim Wu,et al.ResearchGate:An Effective Altmetric Indicator for Active Researchers?[J].Computers in Human Behavior,2016,(55):1001-1006.
[9]Leavitt A,Burchard E,Fisher D,et al.The Influentials:New Approaches for Analyzing Influence on Twitter[J].Web Ecology Project,2009,(2):1-18.
[10]Wu M X.Twitter Under Microscope[EB/OL].http://socialbeta.com/t/twitter-under-microscope.html,2018-11-20.
[11]Yan W,Yin Z,Bromfield W.Analyzing the Follower-followee Ratio to Determine User Characteristics and Institutional Participation Differences Among Research Universities on ResearchGate[J].Scientometrics,2018,(1):299-316.
[12]Hu C P,Yan W W,Hu Y.User Satisfaction Evaluation of Microblogging Services in China:Using the Tetra-class Model[J].Behaviour & Information Technology,2015,(1):17-32.
[13]Bosman J,Kramer B.Swiss Army Knives of Scholarly Communication-ResearchGate,Academia,Mendeley and Others[EB/OL].https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4290428.v1,2018-11-20.
[14]ResearchGate About[EB/OL].https://www.researchgate.net/about,2018-11-20.
[15]iSchools Directory[EB/OL].https://ischools.org/members/directory/,2018-11-20.
[16]iSchools Apply to Join[EB/OL].https://ischools.org/members/apply-to-join/,2018-11-20.
[17]吴婷.美国iCaucus院校图书馆新媒体服务研究[J].图书馆学研究,2016,(19):97-101.
[18]RG Score[EB/OL].https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/RG+Score,2018-11-20.
[19]Pallant J.SPSS Survival Manual:A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows(Version 12)[M].New South Wales,Australia:Allen & Unwin,2005:286-287.