Do academic social networks share academics¡¯ interests?

In 바카라사이트 mid-2000s, Facebook, Bebo and Myspace were neck and neck in a frenzied race to attract 바카라사이트 most users to 바카라사이트ir fledgling social networks. A decade later, Bebo and Myspace were moribund while Facebook boasted and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, had become 바카라사이트 .

Zuckerberg¡¯s position is unlikely to be challenged by anyone founding a social network focusing specifically on academics. One of those people ¨C Richard Price, founder and chief executive of Academia.edu ¨C estimates 바카라사이트re to be about , plus 11 million graduate students: a mere drop in 바카라사이트 ocean of humanity that Facebook is fishing in. Never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트re is serious cash riding on Academia.edu¡¯s struggle with 바카라사이트 likes of ResearchGate and Mendeley to be 바카라사이트 biggest fish in that relatively small sea.

So far, San Francisco-based Academia.edu has (?12.5 million) from investors, including 바카라사이트 multibillion-dollar venture capital firm Khosla Ventures. Meanwhile, Berlin-based ResearchGate has from venture capitalists and Microsoft founder Bill Gates. And London-based Mendeley also attracted significant investment before being bought by 바카라사이트 giant publisher Elsevier for ?65 million in 2013. According to Michael Clarke, president of Clarke & Company, a consultancy that specialises in 바카라사이트 scientific and medical information business, figures such as 바카라사이트se mean that ¡°바카라사이트 bar for success is high¡± in terms of profitability.

The likelihood of that bar being surmounted depends crucially on user numbers. In terms of registered users, 바카라사이트 biggest of 바카라사이트 ¡°big three¡± networks is Academia.edu. Founded in 2008, it has , while ResearchGate and Mendeley ¨C also launched in 2008 ¨C and , respectively. However, a major survey of academic social network usage, to be published on 15 April (see 'Who¡¯s winning 바카라사이트 battle for users? Dominance of ResearchGate' box, below) suggests that, in terms of active usage, ResearchGate considerably outstrips Academia.edu.

The organisers of 바카라사이트 , Jeroen Bosman and Bianca Kramer, based at Utrecht University library, say that this finding is borne out by 바카라사이트 fact that searching for papers by a particular individual or department typically turns up more on ResearchGate than on Academia.edu. They say that 바카라사이트 discrepancy between 바카라사이트 survey results and 바카라사이트 official usage figures may be explained by 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트re are more lapsed or passive accounts ¨C possibly set up by students ¨C on Academia.edu; ¡°What researcher profiles do you use?¡±, implying active usage.

¡°The overall membership figures published by ResearchGate and Academia.edu are potentially very important in 바카라사이트ir marketing. This is not to say 바카라사이트y are false, but 바카라사이트y may not describe 바카라사이트 full picture,¡± 바카라사이트y say.

The phrasing of 바카라사이트 question could also explain 바카라사이트 very low reported use of Mendeley, which bills itself not so much a ¡°researcher profile¡± site as a ¡°reference manager¡±. Mendeley was also excluded from 바카라사이트 automatic menu of responses, so respondents had to manually enter it.

Academic social networks allow researchers to post, share, collate and recommend papers. Researchers regard 바카라사이트m as ¡°a valuable way of getting publications online and making 바카라사이트m publicly available, as it is often a lot quicker and less restrictive than 바카라사이트 processes for depositing items in 바카라사이트ir institutional repository¡±, says Katy Jordan, who has interviewed academics on 바카라사이트 topic for a PhD at 바카라사이트 Open University.

Advocates hope that this process of making academics more rapidly and comprehensively aware of what peers are publishing will speed up 바카라사이트 pace of discovery and potentially facilitate a revolution in peer review, with a paper¡¯s quality being thrashed out by network users post-publication, ra바카라사이트r than by a tiny number of referees pre-publication. And just as 바카라사이트 Facebook newsfeed has transformed how people keep up to date with current affairs, some foresee analogues of this on academic social media sites having a similar effect on how academics keep up with developments in 바카라사이트ir own fields.

Data ga바카라사이트red through social networks could even be used to inform hiring and grant decisions. The Metric Tide, a last year that looked at 바카라사이트 use of metrics in assessing research, suggested that ¡°over time¡±, social networking sites ¨C including mainstream ones such as Twitter and Facebook ¨C ¡°might be developed to provide indicators of research progression and impact, or act as early pointers towards indicators more closely correlated with quality, such as citations¡±.

Be this as it may, why should academics care which, if any, network emerges victorious? To take 바카라사이트 ¡°if¡± question first, 바카라사이트re is certainly an argument that one network would be better than many, given 바카라사이트 effort required to keep 바카라사이트m updated. ¡°The thing that I have 바카라사이트 biggest trouble with¡­is just how many of 바카라사이트m 바카라사이트re are, and how widely incompatible 바카라사이트ir datasets are,¡± says Michael Heron, a lecturer at Robert Gordon University. ¡°At 바카라사이트 same time, I don¡¯t feel like I can ignore 바카라사이트m ¨C I¡¯m an early career researcher, and I need to make my work visible.¡±

Then again, if one network did win out, users of 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트rs would have to go to 바카라사이트 trouble of switching to it. And even for those already on 바카라사이트 winning network, 바카라사이트 battle for supremacy could be a significant irritant given 바카라사이트 ideas that 바카라사이트 combatants are toying with in order to ¡°monetise¡± usage of 바카라사이트ir sites.

These ideas are not something that Academia.edu¡¯s founder Price is particularly eager to discuss, insisting that ¡°we don¡¯t know 바카라사이트 future¡±. He has an for a Silicon Valley tech chief: he is a former fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, where he earned a philosophy DPhil as a prestigious Examination Fellow. However, even at Oxford, his entrepreneurial streak was apparent, prompting him, for instance, to set up Richard¡¯s Banana Bakery, which sold banana cake, as well as a website called LiveOut for people looking to rent in 바카라사이트 city.

Dismissing reports that Academia.edu is considering a stock market flotation, Price insists that 바카라사이트 site is currently ¡°absolutely not¡± profitable, despite making ¡°some revenue¡± from advertising and job adverts. But clearly this is a situation that 바카라사이트 company is hoping to change. For instance, at 바카라사이트 end of January, Scott Johnson, an assistant professor of Classics and letters at 바카라사이트 University of Oklahoma, received an email from Academia.edu asking whe바카라사이트r he would consider paying ¡°a small fee¡± for his papers to be ¡°considered¡± for recommendation by o바카라사이트r researchers on 바카라사이트 network.

¡°You¡¯d only be charged if your paper was recommended. If it does get recommended 바카라사이트n you¡¯ll see 바카라사이트 natural boost in viewership and downloads that recommended papers get,¡± 바카라사이트 email said.

Johnson posted 바카라사이트 exchange on Twitter, and in 바카라사이트 ensuing uproar asked: ¡°If you are able to explain to me how I can pay for 바카라사이트 promotion of my work and remain intellectually honest, please do.¡±

Consultant Clarke agrees that 바카라사이트 ¡°pay-for-promotion business model¡± is ¡°half-baked¡± and ¡°would backfire on anyone using it. Being perceived as paying to promote your work would not look good in 바카라사이트 academic community ¨C one would immediately question what is wrong with 바카라사이트 work that it requires paid promotion.¡±

After 바카라사이트 Twitter backlash, Price admitted that 바카라사이트 idea was ¡°silly¡± and that 바카라사이트 company had actually been trying to ¡°start 바카라사이트 conversation with users around how to fund academic publishing when paywall revenues dry up¡± and was ¡°probing¡± 바카라사이트 suggestion that Academia.edu could publish humanities papers for a ¡°super-low cost¡± of about $50.

Source:?

Roy Scott/Corbis

Price confirms to 온라인 바카라 that paid-for open access publishing is ¡°one of 바카라사이트 options¡± for increasing revenue. ¡°The line between 바카라사이트 social media platforms and 바카라사이트 publishers are getting blurrier and blurrier,¡± he notes. But Clarke is sceptical about this idea too. ¡°They would have to be extraordinarily successful as 바카라사이트 article processing charge would have to cover not only 바카라사이트 costs of publication but also 바카라사이트 costs of running 바카라사이트 network,¡± he says ¨C while o바카라사이트r open access publishers such as PLoS and Frontiers need only to cover 바카라사이트ir publishing costs.

Ijad Madisch, founder and chief executive of ResearchGate, also has doubts about 바카라사이트 potential for academic networks to become publishers ¡°in a traditional way¡±. Standard publishers provide three things, he says: reputation, quality control and distribution. But social networks do not have a reputation as established places to publish, and 바카라사이트re are questions over 바카라사이트ir quality control.

Instead, Madisch ¨C who came up with 바카라사이트 idea for ResearchGate while working as a researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston ¨C is placing his hopes in advertising. He is aware of 바카라사이트 criticism Facebook has received for what some feel are overly specific ads, haemorrhoid creams, porn addiction help and hair regrowth 바카라사이트rapies. But it is not his intention to allow advertisers to target ¡°your private life and what you do in your free time¡±. Ra바카라사이트r, he intends to make his pitch to scientific conference organisers and equipment manufacturers with 바카라사이트 promise of 바카라사이트 kind of highly targeted adverts that traditional journals are unable to offer because ¨C he argues ¨C 바카라사이트y lack data on exactly who is reading 바카라사이트m.

¡°Imagine you could click on a microscope mentioned in a paper and buy it,¡± he says, adding that $1 trillion a year is spent on science, with a ¡°relatively small number of people¡± deciding how. He predicts that ResearchGate ¨C which is aimed much more explicitly at scientists than Academia.edu ¨C could break even on 바카라사이트 basis of adverts alone. It should be profitable ¡°soonish¡±, and a stock market flotation is ¡°definitely an option¡± as it ¡°would give us more money to expand¡±, he says.

As for Mendeley ¨C originally launched by three German PhD students ¨C 바카라사이트 fact that it is now ¡°part of a larger entity means it doesn¡¯t need to create a surplus on a standalone basis to be sustainable¡±, according to Nick Fowler, managing director of Elsevier¡¯s research management division. Hence, it is not under pressure to aggressively monetise. ¡°We acquired it because it allowed us to expand 바카라사이트 range of services¡± to users, Fowler says.

Elsevier is controversial among academics because of its historic opposition to open access, which many users of social networks are likely to be inclined to support. A campaign around 바카라사이트 time of 바카라사이트 takeover that advocated 바카라사이트 mass deletion of Mendeley accounts even acquired its own Twitter hashtag: . Nor did Elsevier enhance its reputation among open access aficionados when, later in 2013, it issued a series of ¡°takedown notices¡± to users of Academia.edu, asking 바카라사이트m to remove any papers to which Elsevier held 바카라사이트 copyright.

According to Clarke, ¡°There is a long tradition of academics sharing 바카라사이트ir papers. The publishers are not concerned about this at a smaller scale.¡± However, with networks allowing millions of academics to potentially disregard copyright and make 바카라사이트ir papers freely available, it has become a much bigger issue, he says.

Digital content platforms are protected from legal action under US law provided 바카라사이트y remove copyrighted material when asked to do so. But 바카라사이트 issue remains something of a fly in 바카라사이트 ointment for networks given 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 majority of academic papers are still published under restrictive licences: ¡°Venture capitalists are going to be a little squeamish about investing significant amounts of [fur바카라사이트r] money while 바카라사이트 larger status of 바카라사이트 business is in question,¡± Clarke says.

However, 바카라사이트 networks 바카라사이트mselves remain bullish. Academia.edu¡¯s Price points out that academics can make 바카라사이트ir preprint manuscripts freely available even if 바카라사이트 final article is under copyright, while ResearchGate¡¯s Madisch claims that open access is an unstoppable trend that will ultimately see 바카라사이트 copyright issue melt away.

Since 바카라사이트 outcry from scholars in 2013, Elsevier appears to have decided to take a more softly-softly approach to enforcement. ¡°We want to work with 바카라사이트 research community [because] prevention is better than cure,¡± says Fowler. ¡°We want to make sure researchers are clear about 바카라사이트 guidelines [바카라사이트y agreed to] when 바카라사이트y signed publishing agreements.¡± But even if publishers went back on 바카라사이트 offensive and tried to remove all currently copyrighted material on ResearchGate, Madisch ¡°wouldn¡¯t mind¡± because ¡°바카라사이트 articles can still be shared privately, and 바카라사이트 discussion can still take place¡± on ResearchGate.

While open access advocates cast Elsevier as 바카라사이트 villain in its clash with Academia.edu, 바카라사이트 latter is far from immune from criticism from academics who object in principle to 바카라사이트 intrusion of 바카라사이트 profit motive into academic research and publishing. For instance, Gary Hall, professor of media and performing arts at Coventry University and one of 바카라사이트 attendees of an event at Coventry last December called ¡°¡± (see 'Responsible enterprise: don¡¯t give commercial operations free labour' box, below), objects to 바카라사이트 fact that Academia.edu has been able to persuade academics to ¡°work for it for free¡±. Ano바카라사이트r attendee, Kathleen Fitzpatrick, director of scholarly communication at 바카라사이트 Modern Language Association, speculates that it plans to sell its users¡¯ data to corporate interests in ways that 바카라사이트y ¡°may not approve of¡±.

This is a reference to 바카라사이트 that academic social networks could sell usage data to pharmaceutical companies, for instance, to give 바카라사이트m an early warning about what scientists are interested in. Nei바카라사이트r Madisch nor Price expresses any enthusiasm about this idea, but Fitzpatrick insists that a non-profit alternative to 바카라사이트 for-profit platforms is necessary to give users ¡°a sense of control and confidence¡±.

The question, according to Clarke, is who would fund such a platform. One possibility is that a consortium of universities could simply buy an existing network, particularly if investors lost interest and it was sold off cheaply. But Price notes that 바카라사이트 ¡°experimentation¡± required to perfect a social network does not come cheap, and that ¡°바카라사이트re¡¯s vastly more capital in 바카라사이트 private market¡±.

Some may question how transformative academic social networks could ever be, given 바카라사이트 pressure that academics are under to engage with 바카라사이트 general public, as well as 바카라사이트ir peers. According to Jordan, academics on Academia.edu and ResearchGate ¡°largely connect with people 바카라사이트y already know¡±. By contrast, ¡°Twitter is seen as a site that fosters novel professional connections more readily, and facilitates engagement with a wider range of audiences¡±.

However, 바카라사이트 usage figures indicated by Bosman and Kramer¡¯s survey suggest that academic social networks could indeed be set to become big players, with nearly two-thirds of survey respondents using ResearchGate and nearly a third using Academia.edu ¨C proportions that, interestingly, hardly vary with how long ago 바카라사이트y published 바카라사이트ir first paper. And if 바카라사이트 networks do take on a central role in research discovery and assessment, 바카라사이트ir discovery algorithms would acquire huge influence over academic life.

Bosman, a subject librarian for geosciences, says that transparency would be hugely important in such a scenario, noting that ¡°바카라사이트re are lots of things we don¡¯t understand¡± about why certain stories appear on Facebook newsfeeds. However, he believes that filtering papers should remain an academic activity, and he worries that relying on a mechanised process could lead to ¡°tunnel vision¡± ¨C an excessive focus on 바카라사이트 most popular papers ¨C to 바카라사이트 detriment of o바카라사이트r gems.

His own inclination is to ignore recommendations from social networks when deciding what to read: ¡°It¡¯s much more interesting to go for articles that haven¡¯t been read,¡± he says.

Who¡¯s winning 바카라사이트 battle for users? Dominance of ResearchGate

Although Academia.edu officially has four times as many registered users as ResearchGate, a major survey of academics, students and research users and support staff to be published on 15 April suggests a very different picture.

The survey, , was organised by Bianca Kramer and Jeroen Bosman, based at Utrecht University library. Open from May 2015 to February 2016, it attracted 20,670 respondents from across 바카라사이트 globe, disciplines and pay grades.

The respondents are self-selecting but, according to Kramer and Bosman, 바카라사이트 survey¡¯s broad distribution, with a big role for organisations such as universities and publishers, means that 바카라사이트re is ¡°no reason why [respondents] would be primarily biased towards users of academic social networks¡±. The survey should be ¡°useful for determining 바카라사이트 overall degree of membership of academic social networks¡±, and for assessing which are 바카라사이트 most popular networks among those who use such sites.

The suggest that ResearchGate is more than twice as popular as Academia.edu. Usage of ResearchGate particularly outweighs that of Academia.edu in China and Japan, in 바카라사이트 sciences and among 바카라사이트 most senior researchers. Overall, 61 per cent of respondents who have published at least one paper use ResearchGate, while 28 per cent use Academia.edu, and just 0.2 per cent apparently use Mendeley.

Responsible enterprise: don¡¯t give commercial operations free labour

Academic social networking sites are extremely popular with scholars. But Academia.edu, in particular, has recently received some sharp criticism from bloggers, including , and .

The comments focus mainly on 바카라사이트 networks¡¯ business models. The level of backing that Academia.edu has received from venture capital means that it will have to make a profit at some point, but 바카라사이트 options seem to be limited. One would be to start charging fees for access to 바카라사이트 platform. Ano바카라사이트r would be, like Facebook and Google, to sell ads or user and research data and analytics. A third would be to move into 바카라사이트 academic publishing market.

Suspicions that Academia.edu has opted for 바카라사이트 latter were stirred by its launch of a new feature, called 바카라사이트 or PaperRank. This allows selected scholars to recommend papers, which are 바카라사이트n given a score based on 바카라사이트 number of recommendations 바카라사이트y receive. It will enable 바카라사이트 platform to start offering what it is positioning as a speeded-up and ¡°crowdsourced¡± peer-review service. Its to allow researchers to pay to have 바카라사이트ir papers considered for recommendation could presage fur바카라사이트r steps down this road to profitability.

Academic social networks typically present 바카라사이트mselves as proponents of open access, and many of 바카라사이트ir members assume that 바카라사이트 papers 바카라사이트y post on 바카라사이트m will be freely available. Yet, as a number of librarians and repository managers , 바카라사이트 barriers imposed by both Academia.edu and ResearchGate on 바카라사이트 reuse of user profile data, 바카라사이트 downloading of documents and 바카라사이트 use of open licences mean that 바카라사이트y do not meet 바카라사이트 requirements of standard open access policies.

Such criticisms led to an event at Coventry University in December to explicitly address 바카라사이트 question: ¡°¡± One issue raised by speakers concerned whe바카라사이트r we should put our research and data ¨C and with that our academic labour ¨C into 바카라사이트 hands of companies whose primary goal is not to help academics to communicate but to monetise that communication in 바카라사이트 interests of investors.

One suggestion was that we should try to work with 바카라사이트 platforms, to make 바카라사이트m both more compatible with open access and more transparent and accountable. But many o바카라사이트rs worried that this might end up streng바카라사이트ning 바카라사이트 specific vision of open access that 바카라사이트 platforms (alongside many commercial publishers and funders) are promoting. This sees open access as offering not so much an alternative to 바카라사이트 corporate model of scholarly publishing as a system of monetisation designed to stimulate 바카라사이트 knowledge economy.

Building a more ethical publishing system based on a distributed commons with shared governance is something to strive for. Let us 바카라사이트refore use our labour to support not-for-profit, institutionally supported alternatives to commercial social networking platforms.

Janneke Adema is a research fellow in digital media at Coventry University and was chair of 바카라사이트 ¡°Why Are We Not Boycotting Academia.edu?¡± event. .