Presence, activity, visibility and interdisciplinarity of Library and Information Science faculty on social media: a gender perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2019.4.1640Keywords:
academic social media, gender bias, research activity, alternative metrics, Library and Information ScienceAbstract
The paper analyzes the presence, activity, visibility and interdisciplinarity of 349 Library and Information Science (LIS) faculty on social media, in order to find possible gender differences. Data were obtained between April and June 2018 from ResearchGate (RG), Google Scholar Citations (GSC), and Twitter, and the population studied corresponded to LIS faculty affiliated to 13 Spanish universities. Different variables were analyzed for the four dimensions, including, among others, the number of documents uploaded to RG and the number of tweets, replies and retweets on Twitter for the activity, along with the percentage of open access documents and of documents differing from traditional genders on RG and the number of followers and followees on Twitter for visibility. Results point out differences between the two groups, especially in terms of visibility.
Downloads
References
Abramo, G.; D'Angelo, C. A.; Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 811-822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.07.002
Álvarez Bornstein, B.; Montesi, M. (2016). La comunicación entre investigadores en Twitter. Una etnografía virtual en el ámbito de las ciencias de la documentación. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 39(4), 8. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2016.4.1352
Araújo, E. B.; Araújo, N. A.; Moreira, A. A.; Herrmann, H. J.; Andrade Jr, J. S. (2017). Gender differences in scientific collaborations: Women are more egalitarian than men. PloS one, 12(5), e0176791. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176791 PMid:28489872 PMCid:PMC5425184
Barbour, K.; Marshall, D. (2012). The academic online: Constructing persona through the World Wide Web. First Monday, 17(9). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v0i0.3969
Beaudry, C.; Larivière, V. (2016). Which gender gap? Factors affecting researchers' scientific impact in science and medicine. Research Policy, 45(9), 1790-1817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.009
Bik, H. M.; Goldstein, M. C. (2013). An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS biology, 11(4), e1001535. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535 PMid:23630451 PMCid:PMC3635859
Brown Jarreau, P.; Porter, L. (2017). Science in the social media age: profiles of science blog readers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(1), 142-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699016685558
Collins, K.; Shiffman, D.; Rock, J. (2016). How are scientists using social media in the workplace?. PloS one, 11(10), e0162680. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162680 PMid:27732598 PMCid:PMC5061391
Copiello, S.; Bonifaci, P. (2018). A few remarks on ResearchGate score and academic reputation. Scientometrics, 114(1), 301-306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2582-9
Costas, R.; van Honk, J.; Franssen, T. (2017). Scholars on Twitter: who and how many are they? 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, October 16-20, Wuhan, China. Disponible en: https:// arxiv.org/abs/1712.05667 [última consulta: 22-12- 2018].
Donelan, H. (2016). Social media for professional development and networking opportunities in academia. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(5), 706-729. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014321
Galyani Moghaddam, G. (2010). Information technology and gender gap: toward a global view. The Electronic Library, 28(5), 722-733. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471011081997
García Nieto, M. T. (2013). ¿Son invisibles las mujeres científicas? Estudios sobre el mensaje periodístico, 19, 783-792. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_ESMP.2013.v19.42161
Ghiasi, G.; Harsh, M.; Schiffauerova, A. (2018). Inequality and collaboration patterns in Canadian nanotechnology: implications for pro-poor and gender-inclusive policy. Scientometrics, 115(2), 785-815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2701-2
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. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2017-0051
Helmer, M.; Schottdorf, M.; Neef, A.; Battaglia, D. (2017). Gender bias in scholarly peer review. Elife, 6, e21718. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718.012
Holmberg, K.; Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1027-1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3
Jhonnel Alarco, J.; Álvarez-Andrade, E. V.; Arroyo-Hernández, H. (2016). Diferencia de género en investigadores peruanos según Google Académico, Gaceta Sanitaria, 30(2), 160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2015.12.003 PMid:26832856
Ke, Q.; Ahn, Y. Y.; Sugimoto, C. R. (2017). A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter. PloS one, 12(4), e0175368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175368 PMid:28399145 PMCid:PMC5388341
Kim, Y. M. (2010). Gender role and the use of university library website resources: A social cognitive theory perspective. Journal of Information Science, 36(5), 603- 617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551510377709
Kjellberg, S.; Haider, J.; Sundin, O. (2016). Researchers' use of social network sites: A scoping review. Library & Information Science Research, 38(3), 224-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2016.08.008
Knobloch-Westerwick, S.; Glynn, C. J. (2013). The Matilda effect-Role congruity effects on scholarly communication: A citation analysis of Communication Research and Journal of Communication articles. Communication Research, 40(1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211418339
Larivière, V.; Ni, C.; Gingras, Y.; Cronin, B.; Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature News, 504(7479), 211. https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a PMid:24350369
Larivière, V.; Vignola-Gagné, E.; Villeneuve, C.; Gélinas, P.; Gingras, Y. (2011). Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: an analysis of Québec university professors. Scientometrics, 87(3), 483-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0369-y
Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender & Society, 20(6), 754-780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206293030
Maliniak, D.; Powers, R.; Walter, B. F. (2013). The gender citation gap in international relations. International Organization, 67(4), 889-922. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818313000209
Martínez Lirola, M. (2010). Notas sobre la visibilidad y la invisibilidad de las mujeres en nuestra sociedad: el caso concreto de la Universidad de Alicante. Revista Nuevas Tendencias en Antropología, 2, pp. 37-58.
Martínez Lirola, M. (2011). Explorando la invisibilidad de mujeres de diferentes culturas en la sociedad y en los medios de comunicación. Palabra Clave, 13(1), pp. 161-173. https://doi.org/10.5294/pacla.2010.13.1.10
Mas-Bleda, A.; Aguillo, I.F. (2015). La web social como nuevo medio de comunicación y evaluación científica. Barcelona: Editorial UOC y EPI.
Mas-Bleda, A.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Aguillo, I. F. (2014). Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? Scientometrics, 101(1), 337-356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1345-0
Mauleón, E.; Hillán, L.; Moreno, L.; Gómez, I.; Bordons, M. (2013). Assessing gender balance among journal authors and editorial board members. Scientometrics, 95(1), 87-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0824-4
Meishar-Tal, H.; Pieterse, E. (2017). Why do academics use academic social networking sites? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(1), https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i1.2643
Messias, J.; Vikatos, P.; Benevenuto, F. (2017). White, man, and highly followed: Gender and race inequalities in Twitter. Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Intelligence Pages, WI 17, Leipzig, Germany - August 23 - 26, 266-274. https://doi.org/10.1145/3106426.3106472
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142709 PMid:26565408 PMCid:PMC4643921
Mitchell, S. M.; Lange, S., Brus, H. (2013). Gendered citation patterns in international relations journals. International Studies Perspectives, 14(4), 485-492. https://doi.org/10.1111/insp.12026
Nentwich, M.; König, R. (2014). Academia goes Facebook? The potential of social network sites in the scholarly realm. In: Bartling S., Friesike S. (eds) Opening Science. Cham: Springer, pp. 107-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_7
Nicholas, D.; Rodríguez-Bravo, B.; Watkinson, A.; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C.; Herman, E.; Xu, J.; Abriza, A.; ?wigo?, M. (2017). Early career researchers and their publishing and authorship practices. Learned Publishing, 30(3), 205-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1102
Nilizadeh, S.; Groggel, A.; Lista, P.; Das, S.; Ahn, Y. Y.; Kapadia, A.; Rojas, F. (2016). Twitter's Glass Ceiling: The Effect of Perceived Gender on Online Visibility. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2016), Cologne, Germany, May 17-20, pp. 289-298.
Orduña-Malea, E.; Martín-Martín, A.; Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2016). La bibliometría que viene: ALMetrics (Author Level Metrics) y las múltiples caras del impacto de un autor. El profesional de la información, 25(3), 485-496. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2016.may.18
Orduña-Malea, E.; Martín-Martín, A.; Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2016a). ResearchGate como fuente de evaluación científica: desvelando sus aplicaciones bibliométricas. El profesional de la información (EPI), 25(2), 303-310. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2016.mar.18
Orduña-Malea, E.; Martín-Martín, A.; Thelwall, M.; López- Cózar, E. D. (2017). Do ResearchGate Scores create ghost academic reputations? Scientometrics, 112(1), 443-460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2396-9
Ortega, J. L. (2015). Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Information Review, 39(4), 520-536. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-03-2015-0093
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. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-01-2016-0012
Paul-Hus, A.; Sugimoto, C. R.; Haustein, S.; Larivière, V. (2015). Is there a gender gap in social media metrics? In: Proceedings of ISSI 2015-15th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, June 29-July 3, 2015, Isanbul, Turkey, pp 37-45.
Peñas, C. S.; Willett, P. (2006). Brief communication: Gender differences in publication and citation counts in librarianship and information science research. Journal of Information Science, 32(5), 480-485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506066058
Potthoff, M.; Zimmermann, F. (2017). Is there a gender-based fragmentation of communication science? An investigation of the reasons for the apparent gender homophily in citations. Scientometrics, 112(2), 1047- 1063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2392-0
Procter, R.; Williams, R.; Stewart, J.; Poschen, M.; Snee, H.; Voss, A.; Asgari-Targhi, M. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1926), 4039-4056. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0155 PMid:20679121
Rinaldi, A. (2014). Spinning the web of open science: Social networks for scientists and data sharing, together with open access, promise to change the way research is conducted and communicated. EMBO Reports, 15(4), 342-346. https://doi.org/10.1002/embr.201438659 PMid:24652852 PMCid:PMC3989665
Sugimoto, C. R.; Work, S.; Larivière, V.; Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037- 2062. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23833
Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K. (2014). Academia.edu: social network or academic network?. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 721-731. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23038
Tsou, A.; Bowman, T. D.; Sugimoto, T.; Lariviere, V.; Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Self-presentation in scholarly profiles: Characteristics of images and perceptions of professionalism and attractiveness on academic social networking sites. First Monday, 21(4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i4.6381
Van Rijnsoever, F. J.; Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.11.001
Ward, J.; Bejarano, W.; Dudás, A. (2015). Scholarly social media profiles and libraries: A review. Liber Quarterly, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.9958
Wildgaard, L.; Schneider, J. W.; Larsen, B. (2014). A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 101(1), 125-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1423-3
Woolley, R.; Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M.; Turpin, T.; Marceau, J. (2014). Research collaboration in the social sciences: What factors are associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration?. Science and Public Policy, 42(4), 567-582. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu074
Zhu, Y.; Purdam, K. (2017). Social media, science communication and the academic super user in the United Kingdom. First Monday, 22(11). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i11.7866 PMCid:PMC5914310
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the print and online versions of this journal are the property of the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.
All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. You may read the basic information and the legal text of the licence. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 licence must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the final version of the work produced by the publisher, is not allowed.
