Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The dynamics of Q&A in academic social networking sites: insights from participants, interaction network, response time, and discipline differences

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A growing number of scholars are using academic social networking sites (ASNSs) for informal academic exchange online. ASNSs have developed question and answer (Q&A) services to help scholars obtain directly relevant information from their peers. There is a paucity of research on Q&A use and interaction in the scholarly community beyond static analyses on Q&A content and influencing factors of using social Q&A sites. This study fills in the gap by examining the Q&A participants and interactions on ResearchGate, a worldwide ASNS, based on a sample of 3933 Q&A entries across five disciplines with 13,655 participants during 2018–2020. The results show that question respondents tend to have a higher scholarly reputation and social connectivity than questioners in most disciplines. Most core users in the Q&A interaction network are interdisciplinary, with Social Sciences’ core users having the strongest influence. In terms of response time, the question-answer and answer-answer time intervals conform to the power-law distribution of fat tail characteristics. Physical Sciences questions receive the quickest response among disciplines. The findings of this study expand and support the notion of disciplinary differences in information behavior. Research on Q&A behavior of ASNS users not only helps expand our understanding of information behaviors in various disciplinary contexts, but also allows such platforms to formulate incentive strategies to facilitate interaction, information seeking and sharing.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banshal, S. K., Singh, V. K., & Muhuri, P. K. (2021). Can altmetric mentions predict later citations? A test of validity on data from ResearchGate and three social media platforms. Online Information Review, 45(3), 517–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bao, Z., & Han, Z. (2019). What drives users’ participation in online social Q&A communities? An empirical study based on social cognitive theory. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71(5), 637–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabasi, A. L. (2005). The origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics. Nature, 435(7039), 207–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bu, Z., Xia, Z., Wang, J., & Zhang, C. (2013). A last updating evolution model for online social networks. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 392(9), 2240–2247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calefato, F., Lanubile, F., & Novielli, N. (2018). How to ask for technical help? Evidence-based guidelines for writing questions on Stack Overflow. Information and Software Technology, 94, 186–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campos-Freire, F., & Ruas-Araujo, J. (2016). The use of professional and scientific social networks: The case of three Galician universities. El Profesional de la Información, 25(3), 431–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Cai, W., Chen, A., Xu, H., & Wang, R. (2014). Empirical analysis on the users’ reply behaviors of online forums. Advances in Computer Science and its Applications (pp. 241–247). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., Cheng, Y., & Feng, M. (2020). Research on payment attractiveness of knowledge contributors in paid Q&A based on hidden Markov model. In 2020 IEEE 11th International Conference on Software Engineering and Service Science (ICSESS) (pp. 453–456). IEEE.

  • Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2004). Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 28(8), 1557–1575.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, S., Tong, J., Lin, Y., Li, H., & Liu, Y. (2019). Motivating scholars’ responses in academic social networking sites: An empirical study on ResearchGate Q&A behavior. Information Processing and Management, 56(6), 102082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, L., Zhang, J., Huang, L., & Liu, Y. (2021). Social influence on endorsement in social Q&A community: Moderating effects of temporal and spatial factors. International Journal of Information Management, 61, 102396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahimzadeh, S., Sharifabadi, S. R., Kamran, M. K. A., & Dalkir, K. (2020). Triggers and strategies related to the collaborative information-seeking behaviour of researchers in ResearchGate. Online Information Review, 44(5), 1077–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsayed, A. M. (2016). The use of academic social networks among Arab researchers: A survey. Social Science Computer Review, 34(3), 378–391.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fangl, Y., Lu, T., Zhang, P., Gu, H., & Gu, N. (2018). Exploring the effect of politeness on user contribution in Q&A sites: A case study of stack overflow. In 2018 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) (pp. 713–718). IEEE.

  • Feng, S., & Kirkley, A. (2020). Mixing patterns in interdisciplinary co-authorship networks at multiple scales. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francke, H. (2019). The academic web profile as a genre of “self-making.” Online Information Review, 43(5), 760–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu, H., & Oh, S. (2019). Quality assessment of answers with user-identified criteria and data-driven features in social Q&A. Information Processing and Management, 56(1), 14–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goh, K. I., & Barabási, A. L. (2008). Burstiness and memory in complex systems. EPL (Europhysics Letters), 81(4), 48002.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y., & Li, L. (2011). Naive Bayes classification algorithm based on small sample set. In 2011 IEEE International conference on cloud computing and intelligence systems (pp. 34–39). IEEE.

  • Humphries, M. D., & Gurney, K. (2008). Network ‘small-world-ness’: A quantitative method for determining canonical network equivalence. PloS one, 3(4), e0002051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, H. R. (2017). Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics, 112(1), 241–254.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jeng, W., DesAutels, S., He, D., & Li, L. (2017). Information exchange on an academic social networking site: A multidiscipline comparison on ResearchGate Q&A. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(3), 638–652.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, J., Li, Y., Zhong, X., & Zhai, L. (2015). Why users contribute knowledge to online communities: An empirical study of an online social Q&A community. Information & management, 52(7), 840–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, X. L., Zhou, Z., Lee, M. K., & Cheung, C. M. (2013). Why users keep answering questions in online question answering communities: A theoretical and empirical investigation. International Journal of Information Management, 33(1), 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, K., & Weller, M. (2018). Communication, collaboration and identity: factor analysis of academics’ perceptions of online networking. Research in Learning Technology. https://doi.org/10.25304/RLT.V26.2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Oh, J. S. (2021). Researchers’ article sharing through institutional repositories and ResearchGate: A comparison study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 53(3), 475–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, G. (2014). Restructuring the social sciences: Reflections from Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science. PS: Political Science and Politics, 47(1), 165–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinberg, J. M. (2000). Navigation in a small world. Nature, 406(6798), 845–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., He, D., Zhang, C., Geng, L., & Zhang, K. (2018). Characterizing peer-judged answer quality on academic Q&A sites: A cross-disciplinary case study on ResearchGate. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(3), 269–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., Zhang, C., He, D., & Du, J. T. (2020). Researchers’ judgment criteria of high-quality answers on academic social Q&A platforms. Online Information Review, 44(3), 603–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, J., Liu, X., & Zhang, W. (2019). Scientists vs laypeople: How genetically modified food is discussed on a Chinese Q&A website. Public Understanding of Science, 28(8), 991–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X. Z., & Fang, H. (2018). Which Academic papers do researchers tend to feature on ResearchGate? Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 23(1), 785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z., & Jansen, B. J. (2013). Question and answering made interactive: An exploration of interactions in social Q&A. In 2013 International Conference on Social Intelligence and Technology (pp. 1–10). IEEE.

  • Liu, Z., & Jansen, B. J. (2018). Questioner or question: Predicting the response rate in social question and answering on Sina Weibo. Information Processing and Management, 54(2), 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, J. A., Rathemacher, A. J., Boukari, D., & Lang, C. (2017). Institutional repositories and academic social networks: Competition or complement? A study of open access policy compliance vs ResearchGate participation. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luzón, M. J., & Pérez-Llantada, C. (2022). Digital genres in academic knowledge production and communication: Perspectives and practices. Multilingual Matters.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lynd, R. S. (2015). Knowledge for what: The place of social science in American culture. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2017). Networked scholarship and motivations for social media use in scholarly communication. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(2), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, S. (2020). Adoption and usage of Academic Social Networks: A Japan case study. Scientometrics, 122(3), 1751–1767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, K. F., Ondaatje, E. H., Zakaras, L., & Brooks, A. (2001). Gifts of the muse: Reframing the debate about the benefits of the arts. Rand Corporation.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45(2), 167–256.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, S. (2012). The characteristics and motivations of health answerers for sharing information, knowledge, and experiences in online environments. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3), 543–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez, C., & Germon, R. (2016). Graph creation and analysis for linking actors: Application to social data. In Automating Open Source Intelligence (pp. 103–129). Syngress.

  • ResearchGate (2021). About. Retrieved June 14, 2021, from, https://www.researchgate.net/about.

  • ResearchGate (2022). Q&A. Retrieved November 8, 2022, from https://explore.researchgate.net/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=951358.

  • 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 (IJITSA), 9(2), 88–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shehata, A. M. K. (2019). Exploring the scholarly communication styles of Arab social science and humanities scholars. Learned Publishing, 32(4), 304–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheikh, A. (2017). Awareness and use of academic social networking websites by the faculty of CIIT. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 5(1), 177–188.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, R., & Mahajan, P. (2017). An altmetric analysis of ResearchGate profiles of physics researchers: A study of University of Delhi (India). Performance Measurement and Metrics, 18(1), 52–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, V. K., Srichandan, S. S., & Lathabai, H. H. (2022). ResearchGate and Google Scholar: How much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why? Scientometrics., 127, 1515–1542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, Z., Dong, Q., Cao, G., & Chen, Y. (2019). What will influence users’ knowledge sharing behavior in the social Q&A community? Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 762–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2018). Altmetric prevalence in the social sciences, arts and humanities: Where are the online discussions? Journal of Altmetrics. https://doi.org/10.29024/joa.6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tran, C. Y., & Lyon, J. A. (2017). Faculty use of author identifiers and researcher networking tools. College and Research Libraries, 78(2), 171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trump, B. D., Cegan, J., Wells, E., Poinsatte-Jones, K., Rycroft, T., Warner, C., Martin, D., Perkins, E., Wood, M. D., & Linkov, I. (2019). Co-evolution of physical and social sciences in synthetic biology. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 39(3), 351–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valizadeh-Haghi, S., Nasibi-Sis, H., Shekofteh, M., & Rahmatizadeh, S. (2022). ResearchGate metrics’ behavior and its correlation with RG Score and Scopus indicators: A combination of bibliometric and altmetric analysis of scholars in medical sciences. Information Technology and Libraries. https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v41i1.14033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, N., Wang, L., Ma, Z., & Wang, S. (2022). From knowledge seeking to knowledge contribution: A social capital perspective on knowledge sharing behaviors in online Q&A communities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 182, 121864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Web of Science Core Collection Help. Research Areas (Categories/Classification) (2020). https://images.webofknowledge.com/WOKRS58B4/help/WOS/hp_research_areas_easca.html

  • Wilson, T. D. (2000). Human information behavior. Informing Science, 3(2), 49–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, D., Fan, S., & Yuan, F. (2021). Research on pathways of expert finding on academic social networking sites. Information Processing & Management, 58(2), 102475.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, W., Zhang, Y., Hu, T., & Kudva, S. (2021). How does scholarly use of academic social networking sites differ by academic discipline? A case study using ResearchGate. Information Processing and Management, 58(1), 102430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, J., Hu, Y., Yu, M., & Di, Z. (2010). Analyzing netizens’ view and reply behaviors on the forum. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 389(16), 3267–3273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, M. (2018). Human dynamics in space and time: A brief history and a view forward. Transactions in GIS, 22(4), 900–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, P., Lee, H. M., Zhao, K., & Shah, V. (2019). An empirical investigation of eWOM and used video game trading: The moderation effects of product features. Decision Support Systems, 123, 113076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Y., Zhao, Y., Yuan, X., & Zhou, R. (2018). How knowledge contributor characteristics and reputation affect user payment decision in paid Q&A? An empirical analysis from the perspective of trust theory. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 31, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, J., Wang, S., Bezemer, C. P., & Hassan, A. E. (2020). Bounties on technical Q&A sites: A case study of Stack Overflow bounties. Empirical Software Engineering, 25(1), 139–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, S., & Guo, B. (2017). The order effect on online review helpfulness: A social influence perspective. Decision Support Systems, 93, 77–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71904148). The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Studies of Information Resources, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China

    Weiwei Yan

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

    Weiwei Yan, Xin Wen & Qian Liu

  3. School of Information, Kent State University, Kent, OH, 44242, USA

    Yin Zhang

  4. Department of Communication, University of Tampa, Tampa, FL, 33606, USA

    Sonali Kudva

Authors
  1. Weiwei Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xin Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sonali Kudva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Qian Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yin Zhang.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yan, W., Wen, X., Zhang, Y. et al. The dynamics of Q&A in academic social networking sites: insights from participants, interaction network, response time, and discipline differences. Scientometrics 128, 1895–1922 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04624-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04624-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation