Making Academic Social Capital Visible

Abstract

The reliable assessment of individual faculty members’ contributions is a key challenge in the governance of research institutions. Traditionally, scientific impact is estimated based on bibliographic analyses. With online platforms, particularly social media, gaining popularity among academics, new opportunities for the analysis of scientific impact arise. Proponents of the “altmetrics” approach hold that both general purpose social media and services tailored to the scientific community allow for a range of usage metrics that may inform scientific impact assessment. We propose that relational analyses of social media platforms may shed new light on these understudied dimensions of scientific impact and may enrich assessment efforts. Based on a sample of Swiss management scholars’ active on ResearchGate, we conduct a social network analysis, derive relational metrics, and correlate these metrics with bibliometrics, webometrics, and altmetrics to gauge their potential to inform scientific impact assessment, specifically in business and management research.

Keywords

social media social network sites scientific impact bibliometrics altmetrics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ackland

(2009). Social network services as data sources and platforms for e-researching social networks. Social Science Computer Review, 27, 481–492.

Aguinis

Suárez-González

Lannelongue

Joo

(2012). Scholarly impact revisited. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 105–132.

Bastian

Heymann

Jacomy

(2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Artificial Intelligence, 2, 361–362.

Bollen

Van De Sompel

Hagberg

Chute

(2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One, 4, e6022. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006022

Borgatti

S. P.

Everett

M. G.

Freeman

L. C.

(2002). UCINET for windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Harvard Analytic Technologies, SNA Analysis Software.

Borgatti

S. P.

Mehra

Brass

D. J.

Labianca

(2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323, 892–895.

Bornmann

(2013). Is there currently a scientific revolution in scientometrics? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 65, 647–648.

Bornmann

Daniel

H.-D.

(2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64, 45–80.

Bourdieu

(1990). Homo academicus. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

10.

boyd

Ellison

N. B.

(2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.

11.

Crane

(1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

12.

Ellison

N. B.

Steinfield

Lampe

(2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168.

13.

Elsayed

A. M.

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

14.

Eysenbach

(2011). Can Tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13, 1–15. Retrieved March 2, 2017, from http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e123/

15.

Garfield

(2003). The meaning of the impact factor. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 3, 363–369.

16.

Gil de Zúñiga

Diehl

(2015). Citizenship, social media, and big data: Current and future research in the social sciences. Social Science Computer Review, 35, 3–9.

17.

Hanneman

R. A.

Riddle

(2011). Concepts and measures for basic network analysis. In Scott

Carrington

P. J.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 340–369). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Haustein

Peters

Bar-Ilan

Priem

Shema

Terliesner

(2014). Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics, 101, 1145–1163.

19.

Hirsch

J. E.

(2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569–16572.

20.

Hoffmann

C. P.

(2015). Success measurement of scientific communication: The contribution of new media to the governance of universities. In Welpe

I. M.

Wollersheim

Ringelhan

Osterloh

(Eds.), Incentives and performance—Governance of research organizations (pp. 291–306). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

21.

Hoffmann

C. P.

Lutz

Meckel

(2016). A relational altmetric: Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 765–775.

22.

Jeng

Jiang

(2015). User participation in an academic social networking site: A survey of open group users on Mendeley. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 890–904.

23.

Jobmann

Hoffmann

C. P.

Künne

Peters

Schmitz

Wollnik-Korn

(2014). Altmetrics for large, multidisciplinary research groups: Comparison of current tools. Bibliometrie—Praxis und Forschung, 3, 1–19.

24.

Jordan

(2014). Academics and their online networks. First Monday, 19. Retrieved March 2, 2017, from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4937/4159

25.

Konkiel

(2016). How to use altmetrics to showcase engagement efforts for promotion and tenure. Altmetric.com, October 18. Retrieved from https://www.altmetric.com/blog/how-to-use-altmetrics-to-showcase-engagement-efforts-for-promotion-and-tenure/

26.

Kousha

Thelwall

Rezaie

(2010). Using the web for research evaluation: The integrated online impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 124–135.

27.

Krackhardt

Stern

R. N.

(1988). Informal networks and organizational crises: An experimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 123–140.

28.

Leydesdorff

(2007). Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 1303–1319.

29.

Lupton

(2014). ‘Feeling better connected’: Academics’ use of social media (Research report). Retrieved March 2, 2017, from http://www.canberra.edu.au/about-uc/faculties/arts-design/attachments2/pdf/n-and-mrc/Feeling-Better-Connected-report-final.pdf

30.

Moody

(2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69, 213–238.

31.

Mounce

(2013). Open access and altmetrics: Distinct but complementary. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 39, 14–17.

32.

PLoS Medicine Editors. (2006). The impact factor game. PLoS Medicine, 3, e291. Retrieved March 2, 2017, from http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291

33.

Priem

(2013). Scholarship: Beyond the paper. Nature, 495, 437–440.

34.

Priem

Hemminger

B. H.

(2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social web. First Monday, 15. Retrieved March 2, 2017, from http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2874/2570

35.

Priem

Taraborelli

Groth

Neylon

(2010). Alt-metrics: A manifesto. Altmetrics.org, October. Retrieved April 2013, from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/

36.

Procter

Williams

Stewart

Poschen

Snee

Voss

Asgari-Targhi

(2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 368, 4039–4056.

37.

Smith

(2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178–182.

38.

Thelwall

(2012). Journal impact evaluation: A webometric perspective. Scientometrics, 92, 429–441.

39.

Thelwall

(2014). Big data and social web research methods. University of Wolverhampton. Retrieved March 2, 2017, from http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/∼cm1993/papers/IntroductionToWebometricsAndSocialWebAnalysis.pdf

40.

Thelwall

Harries

(2004). Do the web sites of higher rated scholars have significantly more online impact? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55, 149–159.

41.

Thelwall

Haustein

Larivière

Sugimoto

C. R.

(2013). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS One. Retrieved January 11, 2016, from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064841

42.

Thelwall

Kousha

(2014). Academia.edu: Social network or academic network? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 721–731.

43.

Thelwall

Kousha

(2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating and measuring scholarship. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 876–889.

44.

Thelwall

Sud

Wilkinson

(2012). Link and co-inlink network diagrams with URL citations or title mentions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 805–816.

45.

Van Noorden

(2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512, 126–129.

46.

Vaughan

Hysen

(2002). Relationship between links to journal Web sites and impact factors. Aslib Proceedings, 54, 356–361.

47.

Vaughan

Shaw

(2003). Bibliographic and web citations: What is the difference? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 1313–1322.

48.

Wasserman

Faust

(1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

49.

Watts

D. J.

Strogatz

S. H.

(1998). Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.

50.

White

H. D.

(2011). Scientific and scholarly networks. In Scott

Carrington

P. J.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 271–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

51.

Yan

Ding

(2009). Applying centrality measures to impact analysis: A coauthorship network analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 60, 2107–2118.

52.

Yan

Ding

(2012). Scholarly network similarities: How bibliographic coupling networks, citation networks, cocitation networks, topical networks, coauthorship networks, and coword networks relate to each other. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 63, 1313–1326.