Akademisyenlerin ResearchGate ve Google Scholar Citations Kullanımları: Türkiye’deki Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Bölümleri Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 2, 240 - 263, 31.12.2021

Demet Işık

https://doi.org/10.33721/by.928614

Öz

Akademik sosyal ağlar bilimsel iletişim sürecinde kendine yer bulan, akademik çalışmaların ve yayınların açık erişim ilkesi doğrultusunda paylaşılmasına ve görünürlüğünün artırılmasına olanak sağlayan, sosyal ağ yapıları ile benzer özellikler taşıyan web siteleridir. 2008 yılında ortaya çıkmaya başlayan akademik sosyal ağlar, araştırmacılar ve akademisyenler tarafından yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Araştırmalar sonucunda dünyada yaygın olarak kullanıldığı tespit edilen akademik sosyal ağlardan ResearchGate ve akademik profil oluşturmaya izin veren bir platform olan Google Scholar Citations hakkında ayrıntılı bilgilere yer verilen bu çalışmada, Türkiye’deki Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi alanında çalışan 128 akademisyenin bu ağlardaki profil bilgileri incelenmiştir. Buna göre akademisyenlerin %62,5’inin (n=80) ResearchGate profili ve %72,65’inin (n=93) Google Scholar Citations profili bulunmaktadır. Bu iki ağın ortak göstergeleri olan yayın ve atıf sayısı ile h-indeks değerleri karşılaştırılmıştır. ResearchGate profili bulunan akademisyenlerin ResearchGate’e toplam 1.658 yayın yükledikleri, Google Scholar Citations’a ise 4.071 yayın ekledikleri tespit edilmiştir. Akademisyenlerin ResearchGate’teki yayınlarının toplam atıf sayısı 6.580, Google Scholar Citations’ta ise 22.882’dir. Yayın başına düşen atıf sayısı ResearchGate’te 3,96 iken Google Scholar Citations’ta 5,62’dir. ResearchGate’te akademisyenlerin h-indeks ortalaması 2,83 ve Google Scholar Citations’ta 6,02’dir. ResearchGate atıfları ve Google Scholar Citations atıfları ile her iki platformdaki h-indeks değerleri arasında olumlu yönde anlamlı yüksek düzeyde bir korelasyon tespit edilmiştir. Kapsama alınan platformların Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi bölümleri akademisyenlerince kullanımlarında üniversitelerine, unvanlarına ve cinsiyetlerine göre farklılıklar olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Akademik Sosyal Ağlar, Bilimsel İletişim, ResearchGate, Google Scholar Citations, Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Bölümü

Academics' Use of ResearchGate and Google Scholar Citations: A Study on the Information and Records Management Departments in Turkey

Öz

Academic social networking sites are websites that have a place in the scholarly communication process, allow sharing and increasing the visibility of academic studies and publications in line with the open access principle, and have similar features with social network structures. Academic social networking sites, which started to emerge in 2008, are widely used by researchers and academics. This study includes detailed information about ResearchGate, one of the academic social networks found to be widely used in the world as a result of the research, and Google Scholar Citations, a platform that allows academic profile creation. In this study, the profile information of 128 academicians working in the field of Information and Records Management in Turkey was also examined in these networks. In the research, ResearchGate and Google Scholar Citations profile information of 128 academicians were examined. Accordingly, 62.5% (n = 80) of the academicians have a ResearchGate profile and 72.65% (n = 93) have a Google Scholar Citations profile. The common indicators of these two networks, the number of publications and citations, were compared with their h-index values. It was determined that academics with ResearchGate profiles uploaded a total of 1,658 publications to ResearchGate and 4,071 publications to Google Scholar Citations. The total number of citations of academicians' publications in ResearchGate is 6,580, and 22,882 in Google Scholar Citations. While the number of citations per publication is 3.96 in ResearchGate, it is 5.62 in Google Scholar Citations. The h-index average of academicians is 2.83 in ResearchGate and 6.02 in Google Scholar Citations. A high level of positive correlation was found between ResearchGate citations and "Google Scholar Citations" citations and h-index values on both platforms. It has been concluded that there are differences in the use of the covered platforms by the academicians of the Information and Records Management departments according to their universities, titles and gender.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Academic Social Networking Sites, Scholarly Communication, ResearchGate, Google Scholar Citations, Information and Records Management

Kaynakça

• ACRL (2003). Principles and strategies for the reform of scholarly communication 1. Erişim adresi: http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/principlesstrategies
• Adie, E. ve Roe, W. (2013). Altmetric: enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics. Learned Publishing, 26(1), 11-17.
• Ali, M. Y. ve Richardson, J. (2018). Usage of academic social networking sites by Karachi Social Science Faculty: Implications for academic libraries. IFLA Journal, 44(1), 23-34.
• Ali, M.Y. ve Richardson, J. (2019), Google Scholar Citation metrics of Pakistani LIS scholars: an overview. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 68(4/5), 392-412. Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-03-2018-0025
• Asmi, N. A. ve Margam, M. (2018). Academic social networking sites for researchers in Central Universities of Delhi: A study of ResearchGate and Academia. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 67(1/2), 91-108. Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-01-2017-0004
• Bardakcı, S., Arslan, Ö. ve Ünver, T. K. (2018). How scholars use academic social networking services. Information Development, 34(4), 334-345.
• Borrego, Á. (2017). Institutional repositories versus ResearchGate: the depositing habits of Spanish researchers. Learned Publishing, 30, 185-192. doi: 10.1002/leap.1099
• Butler, D. (2011). Computing giants launch free science metrics. Nature, 476(7358), 18.
• El-Berry, D. K. (2015). Awareness and use of academic social networking sites by the academic staff at the South Valley University in Egypt. Journal of Library and Information Sciences, 3(2), 115-132.
• Espinoza Vasquez, F. K. ve Caicedo Bastidas, C. E. (2015). Academic Social Networking Sites: A comparative analysis of their services and tools. iConference 2015 Proceedings. Erişim adresi: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/73715
• Graham, T.W. (2000). Scholarly communication. Serials, 13(1), 3-11.
• Gu, F. and Widén‐Wulff, G. (2011). "Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media: A Finnish case study", The Electronic Library, 29(6), 762-776. Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471111187999
• Güler, E. ve Mutlu, M. E. (2013). “Akademik personelin akademik sosyal ağları kullanım düzeyi: Anadolu Üniversitesi örneği. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 72-77.
• Gürbüz, S. ve Şahin, F. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri (5. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Hammarfelt, B., de Rijcke, S. ve Rushforth, A. D. (2016). Quantified academic selves: the gamification of research through social networking services. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 21(2), n2.
• Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C. ve Meckel, M. (2016). A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 765-775.
• Işık, D. (2020). Bilimsel iletişimde akademisyenlerin değerlendirilmesinde akademik sosyal ağların ve altmetrik göstergelerin kullanımı: Ankara Üniversitesi örneği. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Işık, D. ve Gökkurt Demirtel, Ö. (2020). Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Bölümü akademisyenlerinin akademik sosyal ağları kullanım düzeyleri üzerine bir araştırma. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(2), 60-71.
• Jeng, W., He, D. ve 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
• Jordan, K. (2019) From social networks to publishing platforms: A review of the history and scholarship of Academic Social Network Sites. Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 6(5). doi: 10.3389/fdigh.2019.00005
• Kim, H. J. ve Grofman, B. (2020). Who creates a Google Scholar Profile? PS: Political Science & Politics, 53(3), 515-520.
• Konkiel, S. (2013). Altmetrics: a 21st century solution to determining research quality. Online Searcher. 37(4), 11-15.
• Laakso, M., Lindman, J., Shen, C., Nyman, L. ve Björk, B. C. (2017). Research output availability on academic social networks: implications for stakeholders in academic publishing. Electronic Markets, 27(2), 125-133.
• Lupton, D. (2014). ‘Feeling better connected’: academics’ use of social media. Canberra, Australia: News & Media Research Centre, University of Canberra. Erişim adresi: https://www.canberra.edu.au/about-uc/faculties/arts-design/attachments2/pdf/n-and-mrc/Feeling-Better-Connected-report-final.pdf
• Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M. ve Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016). “The counting house: Measuring those who count. Presence of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics and Altmetrics in the Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley & Twitter”. EC3 Working Papers, 21. 19 Ocak 2015. Erişim adresi: https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.02412
• Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E. ve Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). A novel method for depicting academic disciplines through Google Scholar Citations: The case of Bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 114(3), 1251–1273. Erişim Adresi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2587-4
• Meier A, Tunger D (2018) Survey on opinions and usage patterns for the ResearchGate platform. PLoS ONE, 13(10): e0204945. Erişim Adresi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204945
• Meishar-Tal, H. ve Pieterse, E. (2017). Why do academics use Academic Social Networking Sites? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(1), 1-22.
• Naderbeigi, F. ve Isfandyari-Moghaddam, A. (2018). Researchers’ Scientific Performance in ResearchGate: The Case of a Technology University. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1752. Erişim Adresi: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1752/
• Priem, J., Piwowar, H.A. ve Hemminger, B.M. (2012). Altmetrics in the wild: Using social media to explore scholarly impact. Digital Libraries, 20 March. Erişim Adresi: http://arxiv.org/html/1203.4745v1
• Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J.M., Martín-Martín, A. and Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2017), "The lost academic home: institutional affiliation links in Google Scholar Citations", Online Information Review, 41(6), 762-781. Erişim Adresi: https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-10-2016-0302
• Ortega, J. L. ve Aguillo, I. F. (2013). Institutional and country collaboration in an online service of scientific profiles: Google Scholar Citations. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 394-403.
• Ortega, J.L. (2014). Academic Search Engines: A Quantitative Outlook, Elsevier, Oxford.
• Ortega, J. L. (2015a). Differences and evolution of scholarly impact in Google Scholar Citations profiles: An application of Decision trees. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 38(4), e102.
• Ortega, J. L. (2015b). How is an academic social site populated? A demographic study of Google Scholar Citations population. Scientometrics, 104(1), 1-18.
• Ortega, J.L. (2017). Toward a homogenization of academic social sites: A longitudinal study of profiles in Academia.edu, Google Scholar Citations and ResearchGate. Online Information Review, 41(6), 812-825. Erişim Adresi: https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-01-2016-0012
• ResearchGate. (2021). ResearchGate-About. Erişim adresi: https://www.researchgate.net/about
• Salahshour, M., Dahlan, H. M. ve Iahad, N. A. (2016). A case of academic social networking sites usage in Malaysia: Drivers, benefits, and barriers. International Journal of Information Technologies and Systems Approach (IJITSA), 9(2), 88-99.
• Sheikh, A. (2017). Awareness and use of academic social networking websites by the faculty of CIIT. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 5(1), 177-188.
• Shrivastava, R. ve Mahajan, P. (2015). Relationship amongst ResearchGate altmetric indicators and Scopus bibliometric indicators: The case of Panjab University Chandigarh (India), New Library World, 116(9/10), 564-577.
• Thelwall, M. ve Kousha, K. (2017). ResearchGate versus Google Scholar: Which finds more early citations? Scientometrics, 112, 1125–1131. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2400-4
• Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online Collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature news, 512(7513), 126-129.
• Weller, K. ve Peters, I. (2012). Citations in Web 2.0. A. Tokar, M. Beurskens, S. Keuneke, M. Mahrt, I. Peters, C. Puschmann, T. van Treeck, & K. Weller (Ed..), Science and the Internet içinde (ss. 209-222). Du¨sseldorf: Du¨sseldorf University Press.
• Williams, A. E. ve Woodacre, M. A. (2016). The possibilities and perils of academic social networking sites. Online Information Review, 40(2), 282-294.
• Yan, W. ve Zhang, Y. (2018). Research universities on the ResearchGate social networking site: An examination of institutional differences, research activity level, and social networks formed. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 385-400.
• Yu, M. C., Wu, Y. C. J., Alhalabi, W., Kao, H. Y. ve Wu, W. H. (2016). ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers? Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1001-1006.