{"id":21119,"date":"2018-05-22T17:49:52","date_gmt":"2018-05-22T16:49:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jurnsearch.wordpress.com\/?p=21119"},"modified":"2018-05-22T17:49:52","modified_gmt":"2018-05-22T16:49:52","slug":"on-researchgate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/2018\/05\/22\/on-researchgate\/","title":{"rendered":"On ResearchGate"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1002\/leap.1165\">What publishers can take away from the latest early career researcher research<\/a> ($), a five-page &#8220;Industry Update&#8221; for the journal <em>Learned Publishing<\/em>, 28th April 2018&#8230;<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8220;ResearchGate is unquestionably the scholarly elephant in the room, which despite being just 10 years old boasts 15 million research members and is still growing at a rate of knots. &#8230; publisher offerings can look monastic and parochial by comparison. [&#8230;] It looks rather like the new scholarly world order.&#8221; [&#8230;] &#8220;Much depends on whether ECRs [early-career-researchers] take their millennial beliefs in sharing, openness, and transparency into leadership positions. [and if] publishers [start] feeding ResearchGate rather than competing with it \u2013 [making it] a publishing Amazon&#8221;.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The Update is by the team doing an industry-supported three-year cohort study of search and similar practices.  Their first two reports are <em><a href=\"http:\/\/publishingresearchconsortium.com\/\">Early Career Researchers: the harbingers of change? Year One 2016<\/a><\/em> and now also the <em>Year Two 2017<\/em> report, both free and public at the same website. Apparently the cohort of around 100+ is all science and social studies. <\/p>\n<p>Also fairly new, and related, <a href=\"https:\/\/journal.alt.ac.uk\/index.php\/rlt\/article\/view\/2008\/html\">&#8220;ResearchGate and Academia.edu as networked socio-technical systems for scholarly communication: a literature review&#8221;<\/a> (OA), in the <em>Research in Learning Technology<\/em> journal, 20th February 2018&#8230;<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>&#8220;a thorough understanding is still lacking of how these sites operate as networked socio-technical systems reshaping scholarly practices and academic identity. This article analyses 39 empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals with a specific focus on ResearchGate and Academia.edu.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Google Search currently suggests circa 72-million full-text PDFs at ResearchGate, although given the above Industry Update statement on &#8216;the 15m members&#8217; we can probably assume some 10m of those PDFs are just CVs (which are nearly all excluded from JURN, by the way).  Remove other fluff and I guess there might be circa 50m proper papers there. It would then be interesting to work out what &#8220;the uniques&#8221; are, by removing the papers freely available elsewhere in repositories and OA journals and suchlike.  I&#8217;d very roughly guess that including ResearchGate PDFs in JURN may bring in some 5m to 8m papers not found elsewhere.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>What publishers can take away from the latest early career researcher research ($), a five-page &#8220;Industry Update&#8221; for the journal &hellip;<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/2018\/05\/22\/on-researchgate\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,13,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21119","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-academic-search","category-official-and-think-tank-reports","category-spotted-in-the-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21119","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21119"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21119\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21119"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21119"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jurn.link\/jurnsearch\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21119"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}