Measuring perceived and actual e-visibility of researchers in environmental science at a South African university

Leslie Adriaanse; Chris Rensleigh

doi:10.7553/88-1-1857

Leslie Adriaanse University of South Africa http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5363-5059
Chris Rensleigh University of Johannesburg

Abstract

This research on e-visibility aims at enhancing research impact and encapsulates the e-visibility themes: 1) research online presence, 2) researcher discoverability, and 3) online research output accessibility. This article reports on the perceived and actual e-visibility to establish the inclusive research impact of researchers based at the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of South Africa. Bibliometric and altmetric data were collected from citation resources, the Web, academic social networking tools and an online survey. The results show a preference towards utilising free information resources and websites above fee based as part of the research online presence, researcher discoverability, research output accessibility and to ascertain their inclusive research impact. In addition, the results of the e-visibility survey reported positive responses and overall positive attitude and perceptions towards the e-visibility training. This research emphasises e-visibility training as part of an e-visibility strategy to increase research online presence, researcher discoverability and online research output accessibility in an attempt to enhance the researchers’ e-visibility.

Author Biography

Leslie Adriaanse, University of South Africa

Librarian at Unisa Science Library

References

Ale-Ebrahim, N. & Salehi, H. 2013. Maximize visibility: a way to increase citation frequency. University of Malaysia High Impact Research Special feature, May:1–5. [Online]. http://works.bepress.com/aleebrahim/77/ (10 August 2015).

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]. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2344585 (10 August 2015).

Ale-Ebrahim, N.A., Salehi, H., Embi, M.A., Danaee, M., Mohammadjafari, M., Zavvari, A., Shakiba, M. & Shahbazi-Moghadam, M. 2014. Equality of Google Scholar with Web of Science Citations: Case of Malaysian Engineering Highly Cited Papers. Modern Applied Science, 8(5):63–69. [Online]. http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/mas/article/view/37570 (2 August 2019).

Ale-Ebrahim, N., Salehi, H., Embi, M.A., Tanha, F.H., Gholizadeh, H. & Motahar, S.M. 2014. Visibility and Citation Impact. International Education Studies, 7(4):120–126. [Online]. http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ies/article/view/33984 (2 August 2019).

Ali, M.Y. & Richardson, J. 2017. Pakistani LIS scholars’ altmetrics in ResearchGate. Program, 51(2):152–169. [Online]. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/PROG-07-2016-0052/full/html (10 June 2019).

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]. http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4213526 (10 August 2015).

Bar-Ilan, J. 2012. JASIST@mendeley. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Science 2012 Workshop held in Evanstan, Ill.: Conducted by the Altmereics12 Congress.

Bik, H.M. & Goldstein, M.C. 2013. An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS biology, 11(4):e1001535. [Online]. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535 (10 June 2019).

Bornmann, L. 2014a. Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4):895–903. [Online]. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157714000868 (10 June 2019).

Bornmann, L. & Marx, W. 2014b. How should the societal impact of research be generated and measured? A proposal for a simple and practicable approach to allow interdisciplinary comparisons. Scientometrics, 98(1):211-219. [Online]. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-013-1020-x (29 May 2014). Available:

Cann, A., Dimitriou, K. & Hooley, T. 2011. Social media: a guide for researchers. London: Research information network. [Online]. http://derby.openrepository.com/derby/handle/10545/196715 (14 August 2016).

Cheek, J. & Øby, E. 2018. “Getting attention” creating and presenting the visible, online and researcher self. Qualitative Inquiry, 1-12. [Online]. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1077800418806593 (4 November 2018).

Chung, C. & Park, H. 2012. Web visibility of scholars in media and communication journals. Scientometrics, 93(1):207–215. [Online]. http://www.akademiai.com/doi/abs/10.1007/s11192-012-0707-8 (14 February 2015).

Cullen, R. & Chawner, B. 2011. Institutional repositories, open access, and scholarly communication: A study of conflicting paradigms. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(6):460-470.

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 Communication, August:30–41. [Online]. http://reference.sabinet.co.za/sa_epublication_article/afjic_n13_a4 (10 August 2015).

Darling, E.S., Shiffman, D., Côté, I.M. & Drew, J.A. 2013. The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. Peerj, May. [Online]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0435 (10 June 2019).

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.

Goodier, S. & Czerniewicz, L. 2012. Academics’ online presence: a four-step guide to taking control of your visibility. [Online]. http://openuct.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/Online Visibility Guidelines.pdf (10 August 2015).

Greifeneder, E., Pontis, S., Blandford, A., Attalla, H., Neal, D. & Schlebbe, K. 2018. Researchers’ attitudes towards the use of social networking sites. Journal of Documentation. 74(1):119–136. [Online]. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JD-04-2017-0051/full/html (10 June 2019).

Grey, J.E., Hamilton, M.C., Hauser, A., Janz, M.M., Peters, J.P. & Taggart, F. 2012. Scholarish: Google Scholar and its value to the sciences. Science and Technology Librarianship, summer 2012:1-10.

Harzing, A.-W. & Alakangas, S. 2016. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2):787–804. [Online]. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9 (10 June 2019).

Harzing, A.K., & Van der Wal, R. 2008. Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics in science and environmental politics, 8(1): 61-73.

Haustein, S., Larivière, V., Thelwall, M., Amyot, D. & Peters, I. 2014. Tweets vs. Mendeley readers: How do these two social media metrics differ? IT-Information Technology. 56(5):207–215. [Online]. http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/itit.2014.56.issue-5/itit-2014-1048/itit-2014-1048.xml (23 August 2016).

Hemminger, B.M., Lu, D., Vaughn, K.T.L. & Adams, S. 2007. Information seeking behavior of Academic Scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(14):2205-2225.

Hilbert, F., Barth, J., Gremm, J., Gros, D., Haiter, J., Henkel, M., Reinhardt, W. & Stock, W.G. 2015. Coverage of academic citation databases compared with coverage of scientific social media. Online Information Review. 39(2):255–264. [Online]. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/OIR-07-2014-0159/full/html (10 June 2019).

Hirsch, J.E. 2005. An index to quality an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46):16569–16572.

Jamali, H.R., Russell, B. & Nicholas, D. 2014. Do online communities support research collaboration? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(6):603-622. [Online]. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/AJIM-08-2013-0072 (19 August 2016).

Jantz, R.C. & Wilson, M.C. 2008. Institutional repositories: Faculty deposits, marketing, and the reform of scholarly communication. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(3):186-195.

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]. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23225/abstract;jsessionid=BE19B6F1FC975B9C31777DDE033E2EFE.f04t02?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage= (10 August 2015).

Kortelainen, T. & Katvala, M. 2012. “Everything is plentiful—Except attention”. Attention data of scientific journals on social web tools. Journal of Informetrics. 6(4):661–668. [Online]. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157712000478 (11 December 2013.

Kraker, P., Körner, C., Jack, K. & Granitzer, M. 2012. Harnessing user library statistics for research evaluation and knowledge domain visualization. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM. 1017–1024. [Online]. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2188236 (23 August 2016).

Laakso, M., Lindman, J., Shen, C., Nyman, L. & Björk, B.C. 2017. Research output availability on academic social networks: implications for stakeholders in academic publishing. Electronic Markets, 27(2):125–133. [Online]. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12525-016-0242-1 (10 June 2019).

Lawrence, S. 2001. Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature, 411(6837):521–521. [Online]. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6837/full/411521a0.html (10 August 2015).

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]. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009913330800102X (27 November 2013).

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 Education, 29 April: 1. [Online]. http://chronicle.com/article/Social-Networks-for-Academics/131726/ (27 November 2013).

Menendez, M., Angeli, A. & Menestrina, Z. 2012. Exploring the virtual space of academia. In Springer Research to Practice in the Design of Cooperative systems: Results and Open Challenges, edited by P. Dugdale, J., Masclet, C., Grasso, M.A., Boujut, J.F. and Hassanaly, P. 49–63. [Online]. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4471-4093-1_4 (25 May 2016).

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.

Muscanell, N. & Utz, S. 2017. Social networking for scientists: an analysis on how and why academics use ResearchGate. Online Information Review. 41(5):744–759. [Online]. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/OIR-07-2016-0185/full/html?af=R (10 June 2019).

Nicholas, D., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Xu, J., Watkinson, A., Abrizah, A., Herman, E. & Świgoń, M. 2017. Where and how early career researchers find scholarly information. Learned Publishing. 30(1):19–29. [Online]. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/leap.1087 (10 June 2019).

Nicholas, D., Clark, D. & Herman, E. 2016. ResearchGate: Reputation uncovered. Learned Publishing. 29(3):173–182. ). [Online]. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/leap.1035 (10 June 2019).

Niu, X., Hemminger, B.M., Lown, C., Adams, C., Level, A., McLure, M., Powers, A., Tennant, M.R. & Cataldo, T. 2010. National study of information seeking behavior of academic researchers in the United States. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(5):869-890.

Norman, E. 2012. Maximizing journal article citation online: readers, robots, and research visibility. Politics & Policy, 40(1):1–12. [Online]. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00342.x/full (18 June 2015).

Norris, M. & Oppenheim, C. 2010. The h-index: a broad review of a new bibliometric indicator. Journal of Documentation, 66(5):681–705. [Online]. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdf/10.1108/00220411011066790 (23 August 2016).

Obrien, P., Arlitsch, K., Sterman, L., Mixter, J., Wheeler, J. & Borda, S. 2016. Undercounting File Downloads from Institutional Repositories. Journal of Library Administration, 56(7):854–874. [Online]. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01930826.2016.1216224 (10 June 2019).

Redden, C.S. 2010. Social bookmarking in academic libraries: Trends and applications. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(3):219–227.

Repanovici, A. 2010. Measuring the visibility of the universities’ scientific production using scientometric methods. In The 6th WSEAS/IASME International Conference on Educational Technologies, (EDUTE’10), 123–128. [Online]. http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2010/Tunisia/EDUTE/EDUTE-22.pdf (10 August 2015).

Repanovici, A. 2011. Measuring the visibility of the university’s scientific production through scientometric methods. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 12(2):106–117.

Roemer, R.C. & Borchardt, R. 2012. From bibliometrics to altmetrics. College & Research Libraries News, (November):596–600. [Online]. http://crln.acrl.org/content/73/10/596.sh. (10 June 2019).

Rotich, D. & Musakali, J. 2013. Publish or Perish: Remaining Academically Relevant and Visible In the Global Academic Scene through Scholarly Publishing. Conference and Programme Chairs. [Online]. http://www.lis.uzulu.ac.za/conferences/DIS%20Conference%20ProceedingsMarch%202012%20final.pdf#page=64 (10 August 2015).

Swan, A. & Carr, L. 2008. Institutions, Their Repositories and the Web. Serials Review. 34(1):31–35. [Online]. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098791307001542 (27 Novemebr 2013).

Tenopir, C., Christian, L., Anderson, R., Estelle, L., Allard, S. & Nicholas, D. 2016. Beyond the Download: Issues in Developing a Secondary Usage Calculator. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML), 5:365–377.

Van Noorden, R. 2013. Twitter buzz about papers does not mean citations later. Nature News. 1–2. [Online]. http://www.nature.com/news/twitter-buzz-about-papers-does-not-mean-citations-later-1.14354. (10 June 2019).

Waltman, L. 2016. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics. 10(2):365–391. [Online]. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v10y2016i2p365-391.html (10 June 2019).

Ward, J., Bejarano, W. & Dudás, A. 2015. Scholarly social media profiles and libraries: A review. LIBER Quarterly, 22(4):174–204. [Online]. http://liber.library.uu.nl/index.php/lq/article/view/9958/10504 (12 May 2015).