Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social networks formed by follower–followee relationships on academic social networking sites: an examination of corporation users

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As academic social networking sites become important platforms for researchers to carry out research activities, more and more corporation researchers begin to use them. This paper explores the academic interactive behaviors of corporation users on academic social networking sites based on their social networks formed by follower–followee relationships. We take ResearchGate (RG), one of the largest popular academic social networking sites, as the research object, and obtain users’ follower–followee data from top 100 research corporations to reveal their interactive characteristics from perspectives of regional distribution, institutional type and research area using social network analysis. Results demonstrate that corporation users tend to connect with institutional users in regions with high research impact, and that they interact most significantly with universities among types of institutions. Very few interdisciplinary interactions are observed in academic social networks of corporation users, with technology being the only field where such interactions are likely to happen. We discuss users’ social networks on academic social networking sites from the perspective of corporations. Our findings target top research corporations for setting standards for others to utilize academic social networking sites, guide corporation users to conduct scientific communication across regions and research areas, and encourage corporations to carry out industry–university–research cooperations on academic social networking sites.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aharony, N., Bar-Ilan, J., Julien, H., Benyamin-Kahana, M., & Cooper, T. (2019). Acceptance of altmetrics by LIS scholars: An exploratory study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science,51(3), 843–851.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Daihani, S. M., Al-Qallaf, J. S., & AlSaheeb, S. A. (2018). Use of social media by social science academics for scholarly communication. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication,67(6/7), 412–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali, M. Y., & Richardson, J. (2018). Usage of academic social networking sites by Karachi social science faculty: Implications for academic libraries. IFLA Journal,44(1), 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asmi, N. A. (2018). Engaging research scholars in social media a new way to innovative research. In 2018 5th international symposium on emerging trends and technologies in libraries and information services (ETTLIS) (pp. 188–192). IEEE.

  • Asmi, N. A., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balconi, M., & Laboranti, A. (2006). University–industry interactions in applied research: The case of microelectronics. Research Policy,35(10), 1616–1630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardakcı, S., Arslan, Ö., & Ünver, T. K. (2018). How scholars use academic social networking services. Information Development,34(4), 334–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barjak, F. (2006). The role of the Internet in informal scholarly communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,57(10), 1350–1367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baro, E. E., Tralagba, E. C., & Ebiagbe, E. J. (2018). Knowledge and use of self-archiving options among academic librarians working in universities in Africa. Information and Learning Science,119(3/4), 145–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayona Sáez, C., García Marco, T., & Huerta Arribas, E. (2002). Collaboration in R&D with universities and research centres: An empirical study of Spanish firms. R&D Management,32(4), 321–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy,33(10), 1477–1492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berchicci, L. (2013). Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Research Policy,42(1), 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhardwaj, R. K. (2017). Academic social networking sites: Comparative analysis of ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Mendeley and Zotero. Information and Learning Science,118(5/6), 298–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrego, Á. (2017). Institutional repositories versus ResearchGate: The depositing habits of Spanish researchers. Learned Publishing,30(3), 185–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bstieler, L., Hemmert, M., & Barczak, G. (2015). Trust formation in university–industry collaborations in the US biotechnology industry: IP policies, shared governance, and champions. Journal of Product Innovation Management,32(1), 111–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, J. B. (1997). Evaluating industry/university research linkages. Research-Technology Management,40(1), 52–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calero, C., Van Leeuwen, T. N., & Tijssen, R. J. (2007). Research cooperation within the bio-pharmaceutical industry: Network analyses of co-publications within and between firms. Scientometrics,71(1), 87–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, T. R., Buchanan, R. C., Adkins-Heljeson, D., Mettille, T. D., & Sorensen, J. (1997). The future of scientific communication in the earth sciences: The impact of the Internet. Computers & Geosciences,23(5), 503–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty, N. (2012). Activities and reasons for using social networking sites by research scholars in NEHU: A study on Facebook and ResearchGate. Retrieved May 12, 2018, from http://ir.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/1944/1666.

  • Coccia, M., & Wang, L. (2016). Evolution and convergence of the patterns of international scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,113(8), 2057–2061.

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Monte, A., & Papagni, E. (2003). R&D and the growth of firms: Empirical analysis of a panel of Italian firms. Research Policy,32(6), 1003–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espinoza Vasquez, F. K. & Caicedo Bastidas, C. E. (2015). Academic social networking sites: A comparative analysis of their services and tools. Retrieved May 20, 2018, from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/73715.

  • Finardi, U. (2015). Scientific collaboration between BRICS countries. Scientometrics,102(2), 1139–1166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fruchterman, T. M., & Reingold, E. M. (1991). Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Software: Practice and Experience,21(11), 1129–1164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,63(2), 323–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gittelman, M., & Kogut, B. (2003). Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science,49(4), 366–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Alcaide, G., Park, J., Huamani, C., Belinchon, I., & Ramos, J. M. (2015). Evolution of cooperation patterns in psoriasis research: Co-authorship network analysis of papers in Medline (1942–2013). PLoS ONE,10(12), e0144837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A. (2012). Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Computers in Human Behavior,28(6), 2340–2350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gui, Q., Liu, C., & Du, D. (2019). Globalization of science and international scientific collaboration: A network perspective. Geoforum,105, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guns, R., & Wang, L. (2017). Detecting the emergence of new scientific collaboration links in Africa: A comparison of expected and realized collaboration intensities. Journal of Informetrics,11(3), 892–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, J., Bernsmann, R., & Riemer, K. (2017). Dimensions of user behavior in enterprise social networks. In R. Helms, J. Cranefield, & J. van Reijsen (Eds.), Social knowledge management in action (pp. 125–146). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, S. U., Sarwar, R., & Muazzam, A. (2016). Tapping into intra-and international collaborations of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation states across science and technology disciplines. Science and Public Policy,43(5), 690–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henning, V., & Reichelt, J. (2008). Mendeley-a last.fm for research? In 2008 IEEE fourth international conference on eScience (pp. 327–328). IEEE.

  • Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, Y. (2005). Efficient, high-quality force-directed graph drawing. Mathematica Journal,10(1), 37–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D., Pettifer, S. R., & Kell, D. B. (2008). Defrosting the digital library: Bibliographic tools for the next generation web. PLoS Computational Biology,4(10), e1000204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeng, W., He, D., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, K. (2019). From finding a niche to circumventing institutional constraints: Examining the links between academics’ online networking, institutional roles, and identity-trajectory. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,20(2), 96–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laakso, M., Lindman, J., Shen, C., Nyman, L., & Björk, B. C. (2017). Research output availability on academic social networks: Implications for stakeholders in academic publishing. Electronic Markets,27(2), 125–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Oh, S., Dong, H., Wang, F., & Burnett, G. (2019). Motivations for self-archiving on an academic social networking site: A study on Researchgate. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,70(6), 563–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, L., Chen, L., Wu, Y., & Yuan, J. (2012). The role of Chinese universities in enterprise-university research collaboration. Scientometrics,90(1), 253–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Q., & Li, W. (2018). Growing scientific collaboration between Hong Kong and Mainland China since the handover: A 20-year bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics,117(3), 1479–1491.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy,27(8), 835–851.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nature Index. (2017a). A firm shift. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-07420-4.

  • Nature Index. (2017b). 2017 tables: Institutions—Corporate. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2017/institution/corporate/all.

  • Nature Index. (2017c). 2017 tables: Countries. Retrieved May 14, 2018, fromhttps://www.natureindex.com/annual-tables/2017/country/all.

  • Okeji, C. C., Eze, M. E., & Chibueze, N. M. (2019). Awareness and use of self-archiving options among academic librarians in Nigerian universities. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.,68(1/2), 2–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, J. L. (2015). Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Information Review,39(4), 520–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, J. L. (2016). Social network sites for scientists: A quantitative survey. Cambridge: Chandos Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, J. L., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ovadia, S. (2014). ResearchGate and Academia.edu: Academic social networks. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian,33(3), 165–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. H. (2010). Differences among university students and faculties in social networking site perception and use: Implications for academic library services. The Electronic Library,28(3), 417–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quan-Haase, A., & Cothrel, J. (2003). Uses of information sources in an Internet-era firm: Online and offline. In Communities and technologies proceedings of the first international conference on communities and technologies (pp. 143–162). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • ResearchGate. (2018). About. Retrieved May 20, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/about.

  • ResearchGate. (2020). Related researchers. Retrieved February 22, 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/browse.BrowseSuggestResearcher.html.

  • Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading Mass: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, M. W., Brandao, W. C., & Zárate, L. E. (2018). Recommending scientific collaboration from ResearchGate. In 2018 7th Brazilian conference on intelligent systems (BRACIS) (pp. 336–341). IEEE.

  • Rosenberg, N., & Nelson, R. R. (1994). American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy,23(3), 323–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rovira, A., Urbano, C., & Abadal, E. (2019). Open access availability of Catalonia research output: Case analysis of the CERCA institution, 2011–2015. PLoS ONE,14(5), e0216597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Said, A., Bowman, T. D., Abbasi, R. A., Aljohani, N. R., Hassan, S. U., & Nawaz, R. (2019). Mining network-level properties of Twitter altmetrics data. Scientometrics,120(1), 217–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salahshour, M., Dahlan, H. M., & 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,9(2), 88–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, M. D., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industry–university interactions. Research Policy,31(7), 1163–1180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarwar, R., & Hassan, S. U. (2015). A bibliometric assessment of scientific productivity and international collaboration of the Islamic World in science and technology (S&T) areas. Scientometrics,105(2), 1059–1077.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segarra-Blasco, A., & Arauzo-Carod, J. M. (2008). Sources of innovation and industry–university interaction: Evidence from Spanish firms. Research Policy,37(8), 1283–1295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2014). Academiaedu: Social network or academic network? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,65(4), 721–731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,66(5), 876–889.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2017). ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size, and impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,68(2), 468–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Un, C. A., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Asakawa, K. (2010). R&D collaborations and product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management,27(5), 673–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. (2005). R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization,23(5–6), 355–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Web of Science. (2018). Research areas (categories/classification). Retrieved April 10, 2018, from http://images.webofknowledge.com/WOKRS58B4/help/WOS/hp_research_areas_easca.html.

  • Welsh, R., Glenna, L., Lacy, W., & Biscotti, D. (2008). Close enough but not too far: Assessing the effects of university–industry research relationships and the rise of academic capitalism. Research Policy,37(10), 1854–1864.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirsich, A., Kock, A., Strumann, C., & Schultz, C. (2016). Effects of university–industry collaboration on technological newness of firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management,33(6), 708–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R. (2008). How to get the most from university relationships. MIT Sloan Management Review,49(3), 75–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Y. C., Goh, M., Yuan, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2017). Logistics management research collaboration in Asia. The International Journal of Logistics Management,28(1), 206–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan, W., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan, W., & Zhang, Y. (2019). User behaviors and network characteristics of US research universities on an academic social networking site. Higher Education,78(2), 221–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ye, Q., & Hong, H. M. (2019). ResearchGate, an effective way to improve the academic dissemination for highly cited researchers? Journal of Zhejiang University-Science A,20(5), 375–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, M. C., Wu, Y. C. J., Alhalabi, W., Kao, H. Y., & Wu, W. H. (2016). ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers? Computers in Human Behavior,55, 1001–1006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, C. H., Wu, Y. J., & Tsai, K. M. (2019). Supply chain innovation in scientific research collaboration. Sustainability,11(3), 753.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the help of Shiying Yang (Department of Cognitive, Linguistic and Psychological Sciences, Brown University) with the revision of this manuscript. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71904148).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China

    Weiwei Yan, Qian Liu, Ruoyu Chen & Shengwei Yi

Authors
  1. Weiwei Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qian Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ruoyu Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shengwei Yi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qian Liu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yan, W., Liu, Q., Chen, R. et al. Social networks formed by follower–followee relationships on academic social networking sites: an examination of corporation users. Scientometrics 124, 2083–2101 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03553-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03553-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation