IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v25y2016i1p37-49..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms

Author

Listed:
  • Hamid R. Jamali
  • David Nicholas
  • Eti Herman

Abstract

Structural changes to the scholarly environment are taking place as a result of the introduction of Web 2.0 technologies, which have given rise to Open Science 2.0 initiatives, such as open access publishing, open data, citizen science, and open peer evaluation systems. In turn, this is leading to new ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation through emerging platforms, such as ResearchGate. The article reports the findings of a survey of the opinions and practices of 251 European scholars about this emerging scholarly market. Findings showed that traditional research-related activities, including conducting and collaborating in research, taking part in multidisciplinary projects, and publishing in journals contribute most to scholarly reputation. The greatest weaknesses of reputational platforms were a lack of trustworthiness and being open to gaming. The large majority of researchers, despite some reservations, thought that reputational systems were here to stay and will become increasingly important in the future, and especially for younger researchers.

Suggested Citation

  • Hamid R. Jamali & David Nicholas & Eti Herman, 2016. "Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 37-49.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:25:y:2016:i:1:p:37-49.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvv032
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harley, Diane & Acord, Sophia Krzys & Earl-Novell, Sarah & Lawrence, Shannon & King, C. Judson, 2010. "Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines - Executive Summary," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt0kr8s78v, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    2. Harley, Diane & Acord, Sophia Krzys & Earl-Novell, Sarah & Lawrence, Shannon & King, C. Judson, 2010. "Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt15x7385g, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hamid R. Jamali, 2017. "Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 241-254, July.
    2. Sergio Copiello & Pietro Bonifaci, 2019. "ResearchGate Score, full-text research items, and full-text reads: a follow-up study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1255-1262, May.
    3. Matthew Harsh & Ravtosh Bal & Alex Weryha & Justin Whatley & Charles C. Onu & Lisa M. Negro, 2021. "Mapping computer science research in Africa: using academic networking sites for assessing research activity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 305-334, January.
    4. Zahedi, Zohreh & Haustein, Stefanie, 2018. "On the relationships between bibliographic characteristics of scientific documents and citation and Mendeley readership counts: A large-scale analysis of Web of Science publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 191-202.
    5. Amalia Mas-Bleda & Mike Thelwall, 2016. "Can alternative indicators overcome language biases in citation counts? A comparison of Spanish and UK research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2007-2030, December.
    6. Vicente-Saez, Ruben & Martinez-Fuentes, Clara, 2018. "Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 428-436.
    7. Sergio Copiello & Pietro Bonifaci, 2018. "A few remarks on ResearchGate score and academic reputation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 301-306, January.
    8. Łukasz Wiechetek & Zbigniew Pastuszak, 2022. "Academic social networks metrics: an effective indicator for university performance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1381-1401, March.
    9. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 351-360, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chieh Liu & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2022. "Exploring the relationships between altmetric counts and citations of papers in different academic fields based on co-occurrence analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4939-4958, August.
    2. Alessio J. G. Brown & Klaus F. Zimmermann, 2017. "Three decades of publishing research in population economics," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(1), pages 11-27, January.
    3. Loliya Agbani Akobo, 2018. "Action learning through radio: exploring conceptual views and lived experiences of women entrepreneurs," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 235-248, September.
    4. Katarina Krapež, 2022. "Advancing Self-Evaluative and Self-Regulatory Mechanisms of Scholarly Journals: Editors’ Perspectives on What Needs to Be Improved in the Editorial Process," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Fei Shu & Wei Quan & Bikun Chen & Junping Qiu & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Vincent Larivière, 2020. "The role of Web of Science publications in China’s tenure system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1683-1695, March.
    6. Sarah de Rijcke & Paul F. Wouters & Alex D. Rushforth & Thomas P. Franssen & Björn Hammarfelt, 2016. "Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(2), pages 161-169.
    7. Colin Gallagher & Dean Lusher & Johan Koskinen & Bopha Roden & Peng Wang & Aaron Gosling & Anastasios Polyzos & Martina Stenzel & Sarah Hegarty & Thomas Spurling & Gregory Simpson, 2023. "Network patterns of university-industry collaboration: A case study of the chemical sciences in Australia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4559-4588, August.
    8. Jingfeng Xia, 2013. "The Open Access Divide," Publications, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-27, October.
    9. Erin C McKiernan, 2017. "Imagining the “open” university: Sharing scholarship to improve research and education," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, October.
    10. William E Savage & Anthony J Olejniczak, 2022. "More journal articles and fewer books: Publication practices in the social sciences in the 2010’s," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, February.
    11. Claudiu Vasile Kifor & Ana Maria Benedek & Ioan Sîrbu & Roxana Florența Săvescu, 2023. "Institutional drivers of research productivity: a canonical multivariate analysis of Romanian public universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2233-2258, April.
    12. Esteban Morales & Erin C McKiernan & Meredith T Niles & Lesley Schimanski & Juan Pablo Alperin, 2021. "How faculty define quality, prestige, and impact of academic journals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-13, October.
    13. Adrian Mulligan & Louise Hall & Ellen Raphael, 2013. "Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 132-161, January.
    14. William H. Walters & Susanne Markgren, 2019. "Do faculty journal selections correspond to objective indicators of citation impact? Results for 20 academic departments at Manhattan College," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 321-337, January.
    15. Diane (DeDe) Dawson & Esteban Morales & Erin C McKiernan & Lesley A Schimanski & Meredith T Niles & Juan Pablo Alperin, 2022. "The role of collegiality in academic review, promotion, and tenure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:25:y:2016:i:1:p:37-49.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.