Perceived e-visibility by Environmental Sciences Researchers at Unisa Leslie S. Adriaanse1 and C Rensleigh1 ladriaan@unisa.ac.za http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5363-5059 crensleigh@uj.ac.za http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0577-4852 1Department of
Information and Knowledge Management, University of Johannesburg, South Africa Abstract
Online
research
tools allow researchers to embrace online research communities and establish an online presence. An online presence implies e-visibility which embodies online visibility, discoverability and accessibility. An e-visibility survey was conducted on the Environmental Sciences Researchers at Unisa to determine their perceived e-visibility. The results profile the majority being emerging researchers with an average age of 40 with a Master’s and employed at lecturer level. The majority of participants had online research e-profiles with a varied presence observed with a preference for e-profiling on online research social networking tools. In addition, the majority preferred using free-based resources (e.g. Google Scholar) above fee-based citation resources (e.g. Scopus and Web of Science) to ascertain their online research presence and ascertain their traditional research impact. The low percentage of usage and profiling on traditional fee-based citation resources translates to low online visibility. A low percentage of participation in self-archiving by respondents of their research output onto repositories was reported influencing online research discoverability and accessibility and suggests low discoverability and accessibility of online research. The development of an e-visibility strategy would allow the enhancement of e-visibility by increasing online research visibility, discoverability and accessibility. Keywords E-visibility, Online presence, Online visibility, Research e-profiles 1 Introduction Advances in technology and the proliferation of online citation resources and academic social networking tools allow researchers to embrace online research practices and become part of online research communities (Jeng, He & Jiang, 2015:1). These online research communities are seen to embrace and accommodate the needs of researchers with similar interests with the utilization of social networking technology. This affords the researcher the opportunity of actively creating a definite identifiable online presence and allows for active participation and research dissemination on these online research communities (Menendez, Angeli & Menestrina, 2012:56; Arda, 2012:67; Goodier & Czerniewicz, 2012:1; Redden, 2010:219; Lin & Tsai, 2011:1249; and Mangan, 2012:1). The research done for this article forms part of a larger PhD longitudinal comparative study spanning a two year period aiming at developing an e-visibility strategy for the researchers of the School of Environmental Sciences (SES) at Unisa. The objective is to increase their e-visibility (online research presence) by creating and actively maintaining researcher e-profiles on existing citation resources and academic social networking tools. The study places emphasis on defining the concept “e-visibility” and determining the existing citation and social networking status for SES.
This article reports on the results of the
e-visibility survey conducted in establishing the perceived e-visibility of the SES researchers. 2 Literature review 2.1 Defining e-visibility Research by Lawrence (2001:521), indicated that research available online increased the impact of the published paper and suggests that researchers which published online were more likely to be downloaded and cited up to 4.5 times more than printed (offline) research. A number of studies focus on the creation of research e-profiles with the purpose of increasing the online presence of researchers (Chang, 2012:1; Alsagoff, 2012:1; Cann, Dimitriou & Hooley, 2011:15; Goodier & Czerniewicz, 2012:1). Studies by Bar-Ilan, Haustein, Peters, Shema and Terliesner (2012:1), Ale Ebrahim and Salehi (2013:3) and Norman (2012:9) encourages researchers to focus on publishing in high impacts online journals for increased visibility in order to be discoverable and accessible.
It has become essential to have
a research
online presence.
Chung
and
Park (2012:207) define a researcher’s online presence on the Web “as the number of web (co-) mentions of each researcher” which translates to the amount of times a researcher or their research output is mentioned or search hits retrieved for the author on the Web. Norman (2012:4) suggested the research should be visible to wider audiences online on online platforms in an online format. Another study by Ale Ebrahim, Salehi, Embi, Tanha, Gholizadeh, Motahar and Ordi (2013:120) on researcher visibility indicate that a researcher and the researcher’s research output should be discoverable. This translates to published research being easy to find and searchable on online search platforms and databases for other researchers. Studies by Norman (2012:4), Repanovici (2011:126) and Ale Ebrahim and Salehi (2013:3) point out that research accessibility translates to research output being easily accessed by other researchers. It therefore implies the research is stored online for dissemination and archival purposes on repositories (Repanovici, 2011:116; Norman, 2012:4); and is retrievable and downloadable for perusal and citing by researchers (Czerniewicz & Wiens, 2013:39). From the above e-visibility as concept encompasses the following three themes: 1) the researcher’s online presence; 2) research discoverability; and 3) research accessibility. For the purpose of this study, e-visibility can be described as “the online presence, discoverability and accessibility of a researcher and his/her research on the Web”. This translates to researchers increasing their online presence in order to enhance their online discoverability as researchers and their research and enhancing the accessibility of their research for maximum retrieval and downloading to increase citation counts and increase their impact as researchers. E-visibility therefore embodies online visibility, online discoverability and online accessibility of online research. The solution to promoting and enhancing the e-visibility of researchers would be to utilize existing online platforms available in the online research communities that support online research practices. The benefits of research e-visibility include the following: • An online resume and/or Curriculum Vitae (CV) provide a platform for researchers to boost their professional and research profile (Bik & Goldstein, 2013:1;
De Ridder, Bromberg, Michaut, Satagopam, Corpas, Macintyre & Alexandrov,
2013: 3). • Articles which enjoy increased online visibility have a tendency to receive more downloads and citations (Lawrence, 2001:521; Czerniewicz & Wiens, 2013:39). • Research e-visibility enhances professional networking of researchers allowing researchers to make contact with other researchers and collaborate (Goodier & Czerniewicz, 2012:1; Bik & Goldstein, 2013:3; Jeng, He & Jiang, 2012:1; Mangan, 2012:1). Arda (2012:67) describes this as growing your research networks and to become part of an online research community. • E-visibility provides the researcher with a wider communication network between scientists and general public which leads to “online outreach” between the two stakeholders (Bik & Goldstein, 2013:3). • Increased e-visibility allows for enhanced benefits such as crowd-sourced funding and research collaboration within the online research community (De Ridder et al, 2013:3). • Enhanced research e-visibility, helps to improve research efficiency, by allowing for researchers to disseminate and share their research. It allows the researcher to make their research output more discoverable and accessible (Bik & Goldstein, 2013:1; Mangan, 2012:2). • Being e-visible allows a researcher to source bibliometric and related citation information for tracking and improving their traditional impact
on the
traditional
citation resources
such as
Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar.
• The enhanced e-visibility also includes the opportunity for sourcing, tracking and improving their altmetric or non-traditional impact on the
academic social networking
tools
such as Academia.edu, ResearchGate,
Mendeley, altmetric.com, Plum-X. These academic social networking tools will include the accumulation of attention data and article level statistics which translates to altmetrics for the gauging and measuring of societal impact (Bik & Goldstein, 2013:3; Ward, Bejarano & Dudas, 2015:179). Goodier and Czerniewicz (2012:1) believe that researchers take control of their research when they actively start creating and managing their research presence using research e-profiles online. According to Ward, Bejarano and Dudás (2015:177), the most acceptable methods to creating an online presence include using an e- profile. The research e-profiles therefore become the vehicle to enhance and promote the e-visibility of researchers and their research output. 2.2 Research e-profiles An online profile (e-profile) is described as a “digital representation” of a researcher which contains various information of the researcher (Ward, Bejarano & Dudás, 2015:177). The essential elements necessary in a research e-profile include: 1) electronic representation of the researcher; 2) researcher’s online reputation; and 3) researcher and/or research online discoverability and accessibility. The online representation of a researcher and the linked research is crucial to enhance the online visibility of the researcher. The electronic research profile should ideally form part of an online research community which supports and embraces online research practices. The e-profile is located on an online platform which allow for the inclusion of a researcher’s biographical and professional research information and affiliation to a research and/or educational institution (Ward, Bejarano & Dudás, 2015:178). The subscription databases, online archives and academic social networking tools provide an online platform which required the researcher to register an online e-profile. The registration allows the researcher to become part of the online research community and access the e-profile to either add/or update the biographical and/or professional information and the links to the research. In many cases, the researchers take control of the content uploaded to their research e- profiles. The
researcher’s
online
reputation refers to the
authentication
of the
researcher in order to accurately identify a researcher and illuminating author ambiguity (Chang, 2012:1; Piwowar & Priem, 2013:10). This is achieved by supplying each researcher a unique identification number (ID) which can accurately identify the researcher and distinguish the researcher and the linked research from other researchers with same name and within the same disciplines. This implies the researcher is part of a research community and the affiliation to a research and/or professional institution forms the foundation of the researcher’s professional network (De Ridder et al, 2013: 2). Enjoying membership to a professional network of research denotes endorsement to the network of researcher and the research. A research e-profile inherently encompasses research reputation management (Ovadia, 2014:166). The online research discoverability and research accessibility translates to the researcher and the research output content being discovered, retrieved and downloaded by other researchers on online platforms to peruse and cite (Czerniewicz & Wiens, 2013:39). For an online research community to create the ideal environment for online research e-profiles and an online infrastructure the following components need to be present: • The first component includes the identification and seniority of the researcher. It effectively identifies the researcher in relation to research and/or academic institution and contains all the relevant biographical and geographical information pertaining to the researcher. This component also includes the seniority of the researcher within the institution with mention of position, research awards and prizes, grants and research projects (McDonald, 2015:56; Menendez, de Angeli & Menestrina, 2012:56; Ortega, 2015:520). • The second component refers to the networking centrality of the researcher. This involves the influence the researcher exerts within the specific scientific community and the connectedness to the research community. The establishment of communication channels within the research community is viewed as key to the connectedness of the researcher and how much attention are receiving from other researchers (Menendez, de Angeli & Menestrina, 2012:58). • The third component is the publication impact of a researcher which refers to the opportunity the researcher has to link the research publications to a specific research profile. The online research platform created by the research e-profile allows for the measurement of performance indicators derived from bibliometrics and altmetrics from user interactivity on the online platforms to gauge research and societal impact of the researcher (McDonald, 2015:56). The online research community records various usage statistics, user activity and interaction such as views, downloads, shares and citations. • The fourth component refers to the online activity of the researcher. This translates to the online activities the by the researcher with the research e-profile and helps to gauge the currency of the information on the profile and how frequent the researcher updates the research e-profile. Researcher e-profiles essentially consist of three types of e-profiles: 1) traditional citation e-profiles; 2) non-traditional research e-profiles; and 3) consolidated e- profiles. The traditional citation e-profiles include ResearcherID by Thomson Reuters (http://www.researcherid.com); Scopus Author Profile by Elsevier (http://www.scopus. com/authoridentifier) and
Google Scholar Citation Profile (http://scholar.google.com /citations)
(Ward, Bejarano & Dudás, 2015:179). The non-traditional research profiles are created on various websites and social networking tools which include: institutional repositories such as Unisa Institutional Repository (Unisa IR) by DSpace (http://uir.unisa.ac.za); subject repositories such as Figshare (https://figshare.com/) or ArXiv (http://arxiv.org/); and academic social networking tools/websites such as
ResearchGate (http://www.researchgate.net); Academia.edu (http://
www.academic
.edu); Mendeley (http://www.mendeley.com);
Twitter
(http:// www.
twitter
.com);
and altmetric analysing tools such as Altmetric.com (http://www. altmetric.com) (Arda, 2012:72; Chang, 2012:1; Campos & Valencia, 2015:1; Ovadia, 2013:166 ; Niesche, 2013:1; Bar-Ilan, 2014:217). The consolidated profile can be described as an e-profile which consolidates various research profiles into one which is accessible to a wider audience. ORCID (http://www.orcid.org) is an example of a consolidated e-profile (Foley & Kochalko, 2012:319; Mikki, Zygmuntowska, Gjesdal & Al Ruwehyl, 2015:170). ORCID creates
a central registry of unique identifiers for individual researchers
which allows for
open and transparent linking mechanisms between
various existing research profile platforms with author ID systems which include scholarly publication lists such as Thomson Reuter’s Researcher ID, Scopus, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Academia.edu, and institutional websites to enhance the research profile. 3 Research Methodology This article reports on an e-visibility survey conducted in December 2014 which forms part of a longitudinal comparative study (December 2014 to December 2016) aiming at developing an e-visibility strategy for researchers of the School of Environmental Sciences (SES) at Unisa. It involves establishing the perceived e-visibility status of the SES researchers. The e-visibility measuring instruments developed to establish the e-visibility status of the SES researchers include: 1) an e-visibility survey to determine the perceived e-visibility; and 2) a base-line survey, conducted to determine the actual e-visibility.
This article reports on the results of the
first phase, the e-visibility survey. The e- visibility themes addressed in the e-visibility survey include: • Section A - Biographical information; • Section B - Online searching to ascertain online presence; • Section C - Online research profiles; • Section D - Online research discoverability and accessibility; • Section E - Online research social networking presence; and • Section F - Online research impact. The e-visibility survey data was collected and analysed to determine the perceived e- visibility status of the SES researchers. 4 Results and Analysis of e-visibility Survey A total of 62 researchers in the School of Environmental Sciences
agreed to participate in the study
out of
a
complement
of
76 researchers. The online e-visibility survey was distributed via SurveyMonkey and a total of 47 researchers completed the survey yielding a response rate of 75.8%. Following is a discussion of some of the results from each of the sections of the survey instrument. 4.1 Section A: Biographical Information Section A includes questions 1-7 regarding biographical information about the SES researchers. In terms of the age of the respondents the results indicated the largest percentage (53%) of the SES researchers fell within the 20-30 age group, with the youngest respondent being 24 years old and the oldest 69 years old. The respondents had a mean average of 40 years old. Regarding the qualifications of the respondents, the results indicated the vast majority of SES researchers (93%) have postgraduate qualifications with 39% having a Master’s, 33% a Doctorate, 22% a Honours, 4% a Diploma and 2% a Bachelor or equivalent. In terms of the post level description of the respondents it was found that the majority (39.5%) was on a lecturer post level followed by the categories Junior Lecturer (21%); Senior Lecturer (14%); Professor (14%); Manager (7%) and Associate Professor (4.7%). Question 4 allowed the respondents to describe themselves either as an emerging researcher (69%) or established research (23.8%), which included research categories as defined by the National Research Foundation (NRF). In addition, 4.8% indicated a NRF Y2 rating and 2.4% a NRF rating of C2. Regarding the number of accredited scholarly and non-accredited research publications by the SES researchers, the results indicated a large percentage (74%) of the respondents had published accredited journal articles whereas 47% of the respondents published non-accredited journal articles. The results also showed that 43% of respondents presented papers at accredited conferences and 53% presented at non-accredited conferences. The results regarding the publication of books indicated 21% accredited compared to 77% non-accredited books; and regarding book chapters, 55% published chapters in accredited and 72% in non-accredited books. The survey results recorded no patents. The average publication per SES respondent is as follows: Journal articles (3.69), Books (0.69), chapters in books (0.87), conference papers (1.33) and patents (0). 4.2 Section B: Online Search Engines This section inquired about the online search engines and tools used by researchers to ascertain their online research presence. The results indicate the majority (63.4%) made use of free search engines and tools which included Google, Google Scholar, Bing and Yahoo, to ascertain their online research presence. The results further indicate that the respondents obtained a lower percentage (32.6%) of usage of fee- based tools, which included Web of Science, Scopus and Proquest, in order to ascertain their online presence and their research output. It was also recorded that 4% of the respondents indicated no usage of search engines to ascertain their online research presence. 4.3 Section C: Online Research Profile Section C of the survey focused on the SES researcher’s online profiles as researcher and the websites and databases used to create or register these research e-profiles. The results indicated 6.9% of the respondents used no websites and databases to create or register research e-profiles. A large percentage (29.7%) of respondents used the professional social networking tool, LinkedIn to create or register a research e-profile. The academic social networking tools Academia.edu (24.9%) and ResearchGate (19.8%) received the most patronage for research e- profiles after LinkedIn. In addition, the respondents indicated the presence of research e-profiles on Google Scholar (11.9%), ORCID (4%) and ResearcherID (1%) as illustrated in Figure 1 below. 1.0% 4.0% 11.9% 6.9% None 11.9% An institutional website profile LinkedIn profile 19.8% Academia.edu profile 29.7% ResearchGate profile 14.9% Google Scholar profile ResearcherID (ISI) profile ORCID profile Figure 1: Websites and databases used for online research profiles 4.4 Section D: Online Discoverability and Accessibility Pertaining to the types of scholarly publications archived and/or uploaded onto online archives and repositories (institutional and subject repositories), the results indicated that 38.4% of the respondents opted not to upload and/or archive all their scholarly research output onto online archives and repositories. The results also indicate a preference for uploading journal articles (21.9%) above the other types of research output, followed by conference (13.7%), chapters in books (12.3%), slide presentations (5.5%) and pictures/photos/figures (2.7%). The results further indicated that 63.4% did not upload their research onto the institutional repository nor subject archives. The implication of not having uploaded and/or archived onto the institutional repository is that the research is not accessible by other researchers and thus less discoverable. 4.5 Section E: Research Social Networking Presence This section of the survey focused on websites and academic social networking tools used to create an online presence for research purposes. The results indicated LinkedIn received the largest distribution (26.3%) followed by Academia.edu (16.8%), ResearchGate (14.7%), Facebook (11.6%), Mendeley (8.4%), Twitter (5.3%), Diigo (3.2%) and Delicious and Blogger with 1% respectively. The respondents which indicated no presence on academic social networking tools was 11.6% as illustrated in Figure 2 below. 11.6% 26.3% 5.3% 1.1% 11.6% 8.4% 14.7% 1.1% 16.8% 3.2% None Twitter Facebook ResearchGate Academia.edu Mendeley Diigo Delicious Blogger LinkedIn Figure 2: Online presence on websites and academic social networking tools The results further indicated that 61.7% of respondents did not use reference management tools with social networking capabilities whereas Mendeley (23.4%) followed by Zotero (6.4%) and Crossref (6.4%) and CiteuLike (2.1%) usage as reference management tools with social networking capabilities as illustrated in Figure 3 below. 6.4% None 6.4% 23.4% CiteUlike 61.7% Mendeley Zotero 2.1% Crossref Figure 3: Online presence on reference management tools with social networking capabilities 4.6 Section F: Online Research Impact This section of the survey focused on the SES researcher’s impact with specific focus on traditional (citation metrics) and alternative impacts (altmetrics). Question 14 relates to the websites, search engines and databases used to search for citation information of the researcher in order to indicate the researcher’s traditional research impact using bibliometrics. The results indicated Google Scholar was used by the majority (40.3%) of respondents followed by Scopus (12.5%) and Web of Science (12.5%). The results indicated that 18.1% did not use any websites, search engines or databases to determine their traditional research impact and bibliometric information as illustrated in Figure 4 below. 1.4% 2.8% 8.3% 18.1% 16.7% 12.5% 40.3% None Google Scholar ISI Web of Science Elsevier's Scopus Proquest Harzing Publish or Perish Publisher's websites Figure 4: Websites, search engines and databases used to search for traditional citation impact Question 15 relates to the websites, search engines and databases used to search for their alternative citation information of the researcher (derived from attention data). The results indicated the majority (54%) respondents do not use Websites, search engines and databases to search for their alternative citation impact, followed by Academia.edu (24%), ResearchGate (20%) and Impact Story (2%) as illustrated in Figure 5 below. 24.0% None ImpactStory 54.0% 20.0% ResearchGate Academia.edu 2.0% Figure 5: Websites, search engines and databases used to search for alternative citation impact 5 Discussion The profile of the SES researchers represented by the e-visibility survey indicated the majority of the respondents to be a relatively young group of emerging researchers with an average age of 40 years with highest qualification a Master’s and employed on a lecturer post level. Research by Jamali, Russell and Nicholas (2014:607) report similar results where the average age group of the respondents was age 36 to 45 years for researchers participating in an survey on online social networking tools. Regarding the number of accredited scholarly and non-accredited research publications the results indicated a large percentage of the respondents publishing their research in non-accredited books (77%) followed by accredited journals (74%) and chapters in non-accredited books (72%). In addition, there is a preference for using free search engines and
tools such as Google,
Google
Scholar,
Bing
and
Yahoo, to ascertain
their
online
research
presence above fee-based tools such as Web of Science, Scopus and Proquest. Regarding online research profiles, the results reported a preference for the creation of research e-profiles on free websites and academic social networking tools rather than formal research e-profiles on traditional citation resources and websites
such as Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar
and ORCID. Pertaining to the types of scholarly research output archived and/or uploaded onto online archives and repositories (institutional and subject repositories), the results indicated that 38.4% of the respondents opted not to upload and/or archive all their scholarly research output, while 63.4% did not upload their research onto the institutional repository nor subject archives. The implication of almost two thirds of the respondents not having uploaded and/or archived onto the institutional repository is that the research output is not accessible and thus less discoverable to online audiences. In addition, low percentages of self-archiving on institutional repositories meant having low visibility on Google Scholar and academic search engines. Similar results of low participation rates of academics of self-archiving on repositories and online archives were reported by Jantz and Wilson (2008:186), Cullen and Chawner (2011:468), Bankier and Perciali (2008:21) and Lercher (2008:408). Regarding research e-profiles on social networking tools, LinkedIn received the highest percentage of patronage. However, LinkedIn is not considered an academic social networking tool by definition, as no research output/publications was traditionally linked directly to the LinkedIn profile. However, LinkedIn does provide a platform which can be described as a professional e-profile containing the professional information of a researcher for employment purposes. The most research e-profiles were reported on the academic social networking tools ResearchGate and Academica.edu. Research by Menendez, et al. 2012; and Jamali & Russell (2014:607) reported similar results with a high distribution of profiles on LinkedIn, ResearchGate and Academica.edu whereas research by (Mikki et al, 2015:170), indicated the highest distribution of e-profiles to be on ResearchGate. The implication of 23.4% of respondents using Mendeley, means an increase in their online presence by creating an e-profile and linking their research output on Mendeley. Research output linked in Mendeley becomes discoverable and accessible via the Mendeley Papers Crowd-sourced Catalogue and increases their opportunities of their research output being accessed and downloaded for perusal. Pertaining to ascertaining the citation information of the researcher in order to indicate the researcher’s traditional research impact, the results indicated Google Scholar was used by the majority (40.3%) of respondents followed by Scopus and Web of Science (12.5%). This translates to a preference to using free rather than fee- based citation resources to ascertain the researcher’s traditional research impact. Pertaining to ascertain the altmetrics of the researcher in order to indicate the researcher’s non-traditional research impact using altmetrics, the results indicated the majority (54%) respondents do not use websites, search engines and databases to search for their alternative citation impact. The possible explanation for the majority not using websites, search engines and databases to determine their alternative citation impact, could be that they are not familiar with the concept altmetrics and not aware of the possible value of altmetrics for research evaluation within the Higher Education environments. Looking at the results, there seems to be a preference for young emerging researchers to embracing social networking tools to create research e-profiles on social networking tools. The results above are applicable to Environmental Science researchers at Unisa and cannot necessarily be generalised to all researchers in other disciplines and in South Africa. 6 Conclusions and Recommendations The e-visibility status described above clearly suggests low percentage usage by SES Researchers of the traditional citation resources for citation metrics and online research e-profiling services. There are however indications of increased usage of academic social networking tools for e-profiling. However, the results indicate a low online presence on traditional citation resources and low usage for bibliometric information. This translates to low online research visibility of SES researchers. The low percentage of participation of SES researchers in self-archiving their research publications on repositories, translates to low discoverability and low accessibility of SES researchers. The low perceived e-visibility status of the SES researchers allows for the opportunity for creating awareness and the promotion of the various traditional citation tools for bibliometrics and research e-profiling; and academic social networking tools for alternative metrics and research e-profiling. The development of an e-visibility strategy for the SES Researchers would provide awareness of the benefits of enhanced research e-visibility which translates to having an increased online presence, being more discoverable as a researcher and having your research output accessible by creating and maintaining research e-profiles on traditional citation resources, academic social networking tools and consolidated e-profiles. An e- visibility strategy would encourage SES researchers to embrace online research tools and research communities to enhance their e-visibility. References
Ale-Ebrahim, N. & Salehi, H. 2013. Maximize Visibility: A Way to Increase Citation Frequency.
University of Malyasia High Impact Research. 1–3. [Online], Available: http://works.bepress.com/aleebrahim/77/ [2015, August 10].
Ale-Ebrahim, N., Salehi, H., Embi, M.A., Gholizadeh, H., Motahar, S.M. & Ordi, A. 2013. Effective strategies for increasing citation frequency. International
Educational
Studies. 6(11):93–99.
[Online], Available:
http://
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=
2344585 [2015, August
10].
Alsagoff, Z
.A.
2012. Using Social Media for Research. [Online], Available:
http://www.slideshare.net/zaid/using-social-media-for-research- 14033970?
from_search=1 [2013, December 10].
Arda, Z. 2012. Academicians on online social networks: Visibility of academic research and amplification of audience. Estudios sobre el mensaje periodístico. 18:67–75.
[Online], Available: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=
4213526 [2015, August 10].
Bankier, J.-G. & Perciali, I. 2008. The Institutional Repository Rediscovered: What Can a University Do for Open Access Publishing? Serials Review. 34(1):21–26.
[Online], Available:
http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098791307001517 [2013, November 27].
Bar-Ilan, J. 2014. Astrophysics publications on arXiv, Scopus and Mendeley: a case study.
Scientometrics.
100:217–225.
[Online], Available:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-013-
1215-1 [2016, August 07].
Bik, H.M. & Goldstein, M.C. 2013. An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS biology. 11(4):e1001535.
Campos,
F. & Valencia, A. 2015. Managing Academic Profiles on Scientific Social Networks. New Contributions in Information
Systems
and Technologies.
353:265– 273.
[Online], Available: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-
319-16486-
1_
27 [2015, August 10].
Cann, A., Dimitriou, K. & Hooley, T. 2011. Social media: a guide for researchers. London: Research Information Network.
[Online],
Available: http://
derby.openrepository.com/derby/handle/10545/196715 [2016, August 14]. Chang, N. 2012. Creating a strong online presence as an academic" - Google Search. [Online], Available: http://www.theihs.org/academic/2012/06/07/creating-a- strong-online-presence-as-an-academic-part-2-control-your-brand/ [2015, August 10]. Chung, C. & Park, H.
2012. Web visibility of scholars in media and communication journals. Scientometrics. 93(1):207–215.
[Online], Available:
http://www.akademiai.com/doi/abs/10.1007/s11192-
012-0707-8 [2015, February 14].
Czerniewicz, L. & Wiens, K. 2013. The online visibility of South African knowledge: Searching for poverty alleviation: Building the information society.
The
African Journal of Information and
Communiction. August:30–41. [Online], Available:
http://reference.sabinet.co.za/sa_epublication_article/afjic_n13_a4
[2015, August 10].
de Ridder, J., Bromberg, Y., Michaut, M., Satagopam, V.P., Corpas, M., Macintyre, G. & Alexandrov, T. 2013. The Young PI Buzz: Learning from the Organizers of the Junior Principal Investigator Meeting at ISMB-ECCB 2013. PLoS Computational Biology. 9(11):e1003350.
Foley, M. & Kochalko, D.
2012. Open researcher and contributor identification (ORCID). In Charleston Library Conference.
320–323. [Online], Available:
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/charleston/2010/OutofBox/1/
[2016, July 28].
Goodier, S. & Czerniewicz, L. 2012. Academics ’ online presence A four-step guide to taking control of your visibility.
[Online], Available:
http://
openuct.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/Online
Visibility Guidelines
.pdf.
Jamali, H.R., Russell, B.
& Nicholas, D.
2014. Do online communities support research collaboration? Aslib Journal of Information Management. 66(6):603–622.
[Online], Available: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/
AJIM-08
-2013-
0072 [2016, August 19].
Jeng, W., He, D. & Jiang, J. 2015. User participation in an academic social networking service: A survey of open group users on Mendeley. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(5):890–904.
[Online], Available:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.
23225
/abstract;
jsessionid=BE19B6F1F C975B9C31777DDE033E2EFE.f04t02?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCu stomisedMessage= [2015, August 10].
Lawrence, S.
2001.
Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature.
411(6837
):521–521.
[Online], Available:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6837/full/411521a0.html
[2015, August 10].
Lercher, A. 2008. A Survey of Attitudes About Digital Repositories Among Faculty at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 34(5):408–415.
[Online], Available:
http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009913330800102X [2013, November 27].
Lin, C.-C. & Tsai, C.-C. 2011. Applying social bookmarking to collective information searching (CIS): An analysis of behavioral pattern and peer interaction for co- exploring quality online resources. Computers in Human Behavior. 27(3):1249–1257.
Mangan, K. 2012. Social Networks for Academics Proliferate, Despite Some Scholars’ Doubts
- Technology -
The Chronicle of Higher Education. Chronicle
for Higher Educationher Education. 29 April: 1. [Online], Available:
http://chronicle.com/article/Social-Networks-for-Academics/131726/.
McDonald, S.
2015.
Responsible management of online academic reputations. Personal Studies. 1(2):54–63. [Online], Available:
https://ojs.deakin.edu.au/index.php/ps/article/view/
462 [2016, April 03].
Menendez, M., Angeli, A. de & Menestrina, Z. 2012.
Exploring the virtual space of academia.
In P.
Dugdale,
J.,
Masclet,
C., Grasso,
M.A.,
Boujut,
J.F.
and
Hassanaly
(ed.). Springer
Research to Practice in the Design of Cooperative systems: Results and Open Challenges.
49–63.
[Online], Available: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-
1-4471-4093
-1_
4 [2016, May 25].
Mikki, S., Zygmuntowska, M., Gjesdal, Ø.L. & Al Ruwehy, H.A. 2015. Digital Presence of Norwegian Scholars on Academic Network Sites--Where and Who Are They? PloS one. 10(11):e0142709.
Niesche, C. 2013. Who are you online? Creating a web presence for academics: How to make the most of your online profiles. [Online], Available: http://intheblack.com/articles/2013/06/26/who-are-you-online-creating-a-web- presence-for-academics [2015, August 10]. Norman, E.
2012. Maximizing journal article citation online: readers, robots, and research visibility. Politics & Policy. 40(1):
1–12. [Online], Available:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00342.x/
full [2015, June 18].
Ovadia, S. 2013. When Social Media Meets Scholarly Publishing. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian. 32(3):194–198.
Ovadia, S. 2014. ResearchGate and Academia.edu: Academic Social Networks. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian. 33(3):165–169.
Redden, C.S. 2010. Social Bookmarking in Academic Libraries: Trends and Applications. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 36(3):219–227.
Repanovici, A. 2011. Measuring the visibility of the university’s scientific production through scientometric methods.
Performance Measurement and Metrics. 12(2):106– 117.
Ward, J., Bejarano, W. & Dudás, A. 2015. Scholarly social media profiles and libraries: A review. LIBER Quarterly.
22
(4):174–204.
[Online], Available:
http://liber.library.uu.nl/index.php/lq/article/view/9958/10504
[2015, May 12].
