IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-02728160.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Please Do Not Censor This – Why I Left ResearchGate, Zenodo, OSF, LinkedIn, and YouTube

Author

Listed:
  • Miguel Abambres

    (Num3ros)

Abstract

This work exposes what recently and suddenly (i.e., without prior warning) happened to some of my scholarly publications / accounts in some of the most popular content-sharing platforms, such as (i) ResearchGate (aka the FACEBOOK for scientists – you can imagine all the cons), (ii) Zenodo (owned by CERN), (iii) Open Science Framework or OSF (owned by the Center for Open Science), (iv) LinkedIn (owned by Microsoft), and (v) YouTube (a Google subsidiary). All these digital platforms have some in common – they are centralized, i.e. controlled by a single entity, which makes it easier to destroy freedom of speech. Opinion / review papers by myself and co-authors disappeared from some platforms, own accounts were blocked, and also other kinds of censorship (my definition of it) might have occurred, all throughout the second semester of 2019. In this eprint I provide my judgements about it and evidence (webpage archives) of each denounced fact. Lastly, I present my advice for those who are sick to death of feeding big companie$ and wanna take part in the next digital revolution.

Suggested Citation

  • Miguel Abambres, 2020. "Please Do Not Censor This – Why I Left ResearchGate, Zenodo, OSF, LinkedIn, and YouTube," Working Papers hal-02728160, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-02728160
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02728160v3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02728160v3/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miguel Abambres, 2019. "How (Not) to Lead Academia," Working Papers hal-02281227, HAL.
    2. Richard Van Noorden, 2014. "Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network," Nature, Nature, vol. 512(7513), pages 126-129, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Simone Belli & Carlos Gonzalo-Penela, 2020. "Science, research, and innovation infospheres in Google results of the Ibero-American countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 635-653, May.
    2. Mazarakis, Athanasios & Peters, Isabella, 2015. "Quo Vadis German Scholarly Communication in Economics?," EconStor Conference Papers 110679, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    3. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 351-360, July.
    4. Yan, Weiwei & Zhang, Yin, 2018. "Research universities on the ResearchGate social networking site: An examination of institutional differences, research activity level, and social networks formed," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 385-400.
    5. Hunter Bennett & Flynn Slattery, 2023. "Graphical abstracts are associated with greater Altmetric attention scores, but not citations, in sport science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3793-3804, June.
    6. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2021. "What affects publications’ popularity on Twitter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9185-9198, November.
    7. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Measuring Societal Impacts Of Research With Altmetrics? Common Problems And Mistakes," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1302-1314, December.
    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 & 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.
    10. Muhammad Omar & Arif Mehmood & Gyu Sang Choi & Han Woo Park, 2017. "Global mapping of artificial intelligence in Google and Google Scholar," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1269-1305, December.
    11. Zhichao Fang & Jonathan Dudek & Rodrigo Costas, 2020. "The stability of Twitter metrics: A study on unavailable Twitter mentions of scientific publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(12), pages 1455-1469, December.
    12. Curtis Martin & Bertrum H MacDonald, 2020. "Using interpersonal communication strategies to encourage science conversations on social media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-32, November.
    13. Stefano Bruzzese & Wasim Ahmed & Simone Blanc & Filippo Brun, 2022. "Ecosystem Services: A Social and Semantic Network Analysis of Public Opinion on Twitter," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-15, November.
    14. Yu, Houqiang & Xiao, Tingting & Xu, Shenmeng & Wang, Yuefen, 2019. "Who posts scientific tweets? An investigation into the productivity, locations, and identities of scientific tweeters," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 841-855.
    15. 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.
    16. Vivek Kumar Singh & Satya Swarup Srichandan & Hiran H. Lathabai, 2022. "ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1515-1542, March.
    17. Dong Joon Lee & Besiki Stvilia & Seungyeon Ha & Douglas Hahn, 2023. "The structure and priorities of researchers' scholarly profile maintenance activities: A case of institutional research information management system," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(2), pages 186-204, February.
    18. Stephen Webb, 2016. "Twitter use in physics conferences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1267-1286, September.
    19. J. C. F. Winter, 2015. "The relationship between tweets, citations, and article views for PLOS ONE articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1773-1779, February.
    20. Shannon Mason, 2020. "Adoption and usage of Academic Social Networks: a Japan case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1751-1767, March.

    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:hal:wpaper:hal-02728160. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.