A Comparative Study of the Usability of Academic Social Networks

Mohammad Hosein Hayavihaghighi, Mohammad Hossein Pourasad, Mohammad Dehghani
{"title":"A Comparative Study of the Usability of Academic Social Networks","authors":"Mohammad Hosein Hayavihaghighi, Mohammad Hossein Pourasad, Mohammad Dehghani","doi":"10.5812/jcrps-145525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Today, academic social networks play an important role in supporting educational and research activities. Objectives: The present study aimed to compare the usability of these academic social networks. Methods: This comparative study was conducted in 2023 to examine four academic social networks. The data collection checklist consisted of 8 dimensions and 70 questions. After checking the website and the guide of these 4 social networks, the resulting data entered Excel for analysis. Results: Among the 4 social networks, Research Gate ranked first with a score of 87.14, followed by LinkedIn with a score of 75.71, Mendeley 65.71 and Academia 51.43. The mean score of communication channels was 65.91, intelligence 66.67, search capabilities 72.50, privacy 67.86, communication management 79.55, customization 71.43, navigation 92.86, and guidelines 43.75. Conclusions: The strength of the investigated social networks lied in the navigation dimension. The dimensions that needed improvement in these social networks were guideline and privacy.","PeriodicalId":254271,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Research in Paramedical Sciences","volume":"253 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Research in Paramedical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/jcrps-145525","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Today, academic social networks play an important role in supporting educational and research activities. Objectives: The present study aimed to compare the usability of these academic social networks. Methods: This comparative study was conducted in 2023 to examine four academic social networks. The data collection checklist consisted of 8 dimensions and 70 questions. After checking the website and the guide of these 4 social networks, the resulting data entered Excel for analysis. Results: Among the 4 social networks, Research Gate ranked first with a score of 87.14, followed by LinkedIn with a score of 75.71, Mendeley 65.71 and Academia 51.43. The mean score of communication channels was 65.91, intelligence 66.67, search capabilities 72.50, privacy 67.86, communication management 79.55, customization 71.43, navigation 92.86, and guidelines 43.75. Conclusions: The strength of the investigated social networks lied in the navigation dimension. The dimensions that needed improvement in these social networks were guideline and privacy.
学术社交网络可用性比较研究
背景:如今,学术社交网络在支持教育和研究活动方面发挥着重要作用。研究目的本研究旨在比较这些学术社交网络的可用性。研究方法本比较研究于 2023 年进行,考察了四个学术社交网络。数据收集清单包括 8 个维度和 70 个问题。在检查了这 4 个社交网络的网站和指南后,将所得数据输入 Excel 进行分析。分析结果在这 4 个社交网络中,Research Gate 以 87.14 分排名第一,其次是 LinkedIn(75.71 分)、Mendeley(65.71 分)和 Academia(51.43 分)。交流渠道的平均得分为 65.91,智能 66.67,搜索能力 72.50,隐私 67.86,交流管理 79.55,定制 71.43,导航 92.86,指南 43.75。结论所调查的社交网络的优势在于导航维度。这些社交网络需要改进的方面是指南和隐私。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信