学术声誉建设:ResearchGate如何运作?

D. Nicholas, Eti Herman, D. Clark
{"title":"学术声誉建设:ResearchGate如何运作?","authors":"D. Nicholas, Eti Herman, D. Clark","doi":"10.5865/IJKCT.2016.6.2.067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Article history: Received 17 March 2016 Revised 23 April 2016 Accepted 26 April 2016 Employing a newly developed conceptual framework of the tasks and activities that comprise today’s digital scholarly undertaking and their potentially reputation building, maintaining and enhancing components, the efforts of ResearchGate in supporting scholars’ reputation building endeavours were put under the microscope. Not unexpectedly, RG performs well in regard to basic research activities. Clearly, too, with ten metrics at its disposal, RG is in a league of its own when it comes to monitoring individual research reputation. Where RG falls down is regarding scholarly activities that do not concern pure research and so especially teaching. Its claim to have created a new way of measuring reputation is only partially true because if it wants to do so genuinely then it needs to extend the range of scholarly activities covered. RG also falls short in informing members as to the nature and changes to its service and of embracing new actors, such as citizen scientists and amateur experts.","PeriodicalId":53292,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Knowledge Content Development and Technology","volume":"6 1","pages":"67-92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scholarly Reputation Building: How does ResearchGate Fare?\",\"authors\":\"D. Nicholas, Eti Herman, D. Clark\",\"doi\":\"10.5865/IJKCT.2016.6.2.067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Article history: Received 17 March 2016 Revised 23 April 2016 Accepted 26 April 2016 Employing a newly developed conceptual framework of the tasks and activities that comprise today’s digital scholarly undertaking and their potentially reputation building, maintaining and enhancing components, the efforts of ResearchGate in supporting scholars’ reputation building endeavours were put under the microscope. Not unexpectedly, RG performs well in regard to basic research activities. Clearly, too, with ten metrics at its disposal, RG is in a league of its own when it comes to monitoring individual research reputation. Where RG falls down is regarding scholarly activities that do not concern pure research and so especially teaching. Its claim to have created a new way of measuring reputation is only partially true because if it wants to do so genuinely then it needs to extend the range of scholarly activities covered. RG also falls short in informing members as to the nature and changes to its service and of embracing new actors, such as citizen scientists and amateur experts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53292,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Knowledge Content Development and Technology\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"67-92\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Knowledge Content Development and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5865/IJKCT.2016.6.2.067\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Knowledge Content Development and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5865/IJKCT.2016.6.2.067","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

文章历史:2016年3月17日修订2016年4月23日接受2016年4月26日采用新开发的任务和活动概念框架,包括当今的数字学术事业及其潜在的声誉建立、维护和增强组成部分,研究之门在支持学者声誉建立方面的努力被置于显微镜下。不出所料,RG在基础研究活动方面表现出色。很明显,RG有10个指标可供使用,在监测个人研究声誉方面独树一帜。RG的不足之处在于不涉及纯粹研究的学术活动,尤其是教学活动。它声称创造了一种衡量声誉的新方法,这只是部分正确的,因为如果它真的想这样做,那么它需要扩大所涵盖的学术活动范围。RG在向成员通报其服务的性质和变化以及接纳新的参与者(如公民科学家和业余专家)方面也做得不够。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Scholarly Reputation Building: How does ResearchGate Fare?
Article history: Received 17 March 2016 Revised 23 April 2016 Accepted 26 April 2016 Employing a newly developed conceptual framework of the tasks and activities that comprise today’s digital scholarly undertaking and their potentially reputation building, maintaining and enhancing components, the efforts of ResearchGate in supporting scholars’ reputation building endeavours were put under the microscope. Not unexpectedly, RG performs well in regard to basic research activities. Clearly, too, with ten metrics at its disposal, RG is in a league of its own when it comes to monitoring individual research reputation. Where RG falls down is regarding scholarly activities that do not concern pure research and so especially teaching. Its claim to have created a new way of measuring reputation is only partially true because if it wants to do so genuinely then it needs to extend the range of scholarly activities covered. RG also falls short in informing members as to the nature and changes to its service and of embracing new actors, such as citizen scientists and amateur experts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
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