图书情报工作

图书情报工作 >

2017 , Vol. 61 >Issue 6: 99 - 106

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2017.06.016

情报研究

基于学术社交网络的文献阅读及学科关注点差异研究

  • 邓胜利 ,
  • 向阳
展开
  • 武汉大学信息资源研究中心 武汉 430072
邓胜利(ORCID:0000-0001-7489-4439),教授,博士,博士生导师,E-mail:victorydc@sina.com;向阳(ORCID:0000-0002-8569-5117),硕士研究生。

收稿日期: 2016-12-19

  修回日期: 2017-02-28

  网络出版日期: 2017-03-20

基金资助

本文系教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目"我国服务业信息化推进与保障机制研究"（项目编号：15JJD870001）和武汉大学"351人才计划项目"研究成果之一。

收起

Research on the Differences of Literature Reading and Disciplinary Focus Based on Academic Social Networks

  • Deng Shengli ,
  • Xiang Yang
Expand
  • Center for Studies of Information Resources, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072

Received date: 2016-12-19

  Revised date: 2017-02-28

  Online published: 2017-03-20

Fold

摘要

[目的/意义] 对不同学术社交网络中不同学科用户的文献阅读差异进行分析，以了解在不同学术社交网络中的学科分布情况，掌握在不同学术社交网络中的学科研究热点。[方法/过程] 通过Altmetric. com获取24个学科的4 800篇热点文献，利用爬虫采集这些文献在Mendeley和ResearchGate的被阅读次数，再对文献进行内容分析，得到关键词，最后对比分析不同学术社交网络中文献阅读差异以及学科关注热点的一致性。[结果/结论] 不同学科的读者身份、读者所属领域具有显著差异，ResearchGate中的文献阅读次数普遍高于Mendeley，且社会科学等软学科的文献阅读相对优势更为明显，而物理学等硬学科的文献阅读相对优势较低。Mendeley和ResearchGate在地球与地理科学、化学和环境科学等学科中的关注热点具有较高的一致性，而物理学等部分学科中的关注热点表现出较低的一致性。

关键词： 学术社交网络; 文献阅读; Mendeley; ResearchGate

本文引用格式

邓胜利 , 向阳 . 基于学术社交网络的文献阅读及学科关注点差异研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2017 , 61(6) : 99 -106 . DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2017.06.016

Abstract

[Purpose/significance] By analyzing the differences of the literature reading among different disciplines in different Academic Social Networks(ASNS), it is expected to help readers understand the distribution of subjects in different ASNS and master the research hotspots in different ASNS.[Method/process] This paper collected 4 800 hot articles from 24 disciplines through Altmetric.com, used the crawler to collect the reading number in Mendeley and ResearchGate, and analyzed the literature to get the key words. Finally, this paper compared and analyzed the difference of literature reading and the consistency of hot spot in different ASNS.[Result/conclusion] The results show that there are significant differences in the distribution of the readership and the subject. RG is more than Mendeley in the number of readings, and the Soft Subjects use RG more often than Mendeley, whereas the Hard Subjects use Mendeley and RG less different. On the other hand, different ASNS have different focus on different subjects which means that the more research fields in a subject, the more dispersed of the hot spots in different ASNS.

Key words： academic social networks; literature reading; Mendeley; ResearchGate

参考文献

[1] THELWALL M, KOUSHA K. Academia. edu:social network or academic network?[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 65(4):721-731.
[2] 刘先红, 李纲.科研社交网络的推荐系统对比分析[J]. 图书情报工作, 2016, 60(9):116-122.
[3] JONATHAN B. Mendeley bootcamp for German-speaking researchers[EB/OL].[2016-10-10]. https://blog.mendeley.com/2016/10/07/mendeley-bootcamp-for-german-speaking-researchers/.
[4] ResearchGate. About us.[EB/OL].[2016-10-10]. https://www.researchgate.net/about.
[5] MOHAMMADI E, THELWALL M, HAUSTEIN S, et al. Who reads research articles? an altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(9):1832-1846.
[6] NÁNDEZ G, BORREGO Á. Use of social networks for academic purposes:a case study[J]. The electronic library, 2013, 31(6):781-791.
[7] CHEN J M, TANG Y, LI J G, et al. Community-based scholar recommendation modeling in academic social network sites[C]//International conference on web information systems engineering. Berlin:Springer, 2013:325-334.
[8] LI X, THELWALL M, GIUSTINI D. Validating online reference managers for scholarly impact measurement[J]. Scientometrics, 2012, 91(2):461-471.
[9] ORTEGA J L. Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites[J]. Online information review, 2015, 39(4):520-536.
[10] THELWALL M, KOUSHA K. ResearchGate articles:age, discipline, audience size, and impact[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(3):1-12.
[11] THELWALL M, MAFLAHI N. Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? an analysis of Mendeley readers[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(6):1124-1135.
[12] THELWALL M, KOUSHA K. ResearchGate:disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship?[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(5):876-889.
[13] JENG W, HE D, JIANG J. User participation in an academic social networking service:a survey of open group users on Mendeley[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(5):890-904.
[14] 陈明红, 漆贤军, 刘莹. 科研社交网络使用行为的影响因素研究[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2015, 38(10):73-79.
[15] GRUZD A, STAVES K, WILK A. Connected scholars:examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2012, 28(6):2340-2350.
[16] NICHOLAS D, CLARK D, HERMAN E. ResearchGate:reputation uncovered[J]. Learned publishing, 2016, 29(3):173-182.
[17] HOFFMANN C P, LUTZ C, MECKEL M. A relational altmetric? network centrality on ResearchGateas an indicator of scientific impact[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, 67(4):765-775.
[18] KRAKER P, LEX E. A critical look at the ResearchGate score as a measure of scientific reputation[C]//Proceedings of the quantifying and analysing scholarly communication on the web workshop. Oxford:ACM, 2015:7-9.
[19] 李玲丽, 吴新年. 科研社交网络的发展现状及趋势分析[J]. 图书馆学研究, 2013, 34(1):36-41.
[20] HAUSTEIN S, PETERS I, BAR-ILAN J, et al. Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(2):1145-1163.
[21] ZAHEDI Z, COSTAS R, WOUTERS P. How well developed are altmetrics? a cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 101(2):1491-1513.
[22] BAR-ILAN J. Astrophysics publications on arXiv, Scopus and Mendeley:a case study[J]. Scientometrics, 2014, 100(1):217-225.
[23] JIANG J, NI C, HE D, et al. Mendeley group as a new source of interdisciplinarity study:how do disciplines interact on Mendeley?[C]//Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on digital libraries. Indianapolis:ACM, 2013:135-138.
[24] LI L, HE D, JENG W, et al. Answer quality characteristics and prediction on an academic Q&Asite:a case study on ResearchGate[C]//Proceedings of the 24th international conference on world wide web. Florence:ACM, 2015:1453-1458.
[25] OH J S, JENG W. Groups in academic social networking services——an exploration of their potential as a platform for multi-disciplinary collaboration[C]//2011 IEEE International conference on privacy, security, risk, and trust, and IEEE international conference on social computing. Boston:IEEE, 2011:545-548.
[26] GOODWIN S, JENG W, HE D. Changing communication on ResearchGate through interface updates[J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2014, 51(1):1-4.
[27] PORCEL C, LÓPEZ-HERRERA A G,HERRERA-VIEDMA E. A recommender system to promote collaborative research groups in an academic context[C]//Proceedings of the 8th international FLINS conference. Madrid:World scientific publ co pte ltd, 2008:847-852
[28] 汪俊, 岳峰, 王刚, 等. 科研社交网络中基于链接预测的专家推荐研究[J]. 情报杂志, 2015, 34(6):151-157.
[29] ROHANI V A, KASIRUN Z M, KUMAR S, et al. An effective recommender algorithm for cold-start problem in academic social networks[J]. Mathematical problems in engineering, 2014(2014)(2):505-519.
[30] Altmetric explorer[EB/OL].[2016-09-20]. http://www.altmetric.com/aboutexplorer.php.
[31] Springerlink[EB/OL].[2016-10-10]. http://link.springer.com/.
[32] ALHOORI H, RAY CHOUDHURY S, KANAN T, et al. On the relationship between open access and altmetrics[J]. iConference, 2015, 136(164):97-104.
[33] YANG S, LI S, YE X, et al. Content mining and network analysis of microblog spam[J]. Journal of convergence information technology, 2010, 5(1):135-140.
[34] 魏屹东, 王保红. 科学分类的维度分析[J]. 科学学研究, 2011, 29(9):1291-1298.
Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉