Academic social networking sites (ASNS) have received substantial attention in recent years. The information quality of academic resources is vital to users. In order to improve the users’ information quality experience, it is necessary to understand how users perceive information quality in ASNS and what factors or relations affect their results of information quality perception. Drawing on the approach of the means-end chain, our study implemented a laddering interviews with ASNS users. We both elucidated various factors influencing information quality perception and constructed a hierarchical value map, all of the complex relationships were quantitatively calculated and represented in a hierarchical structure. The results showed that 13 factors were identified and 18 relations were described. This study contributes by addressing the process of users’ information quality perception in the ASNS and by giving a deep and nuanced understanding of the factors affecting information quality. This is different from prior research that mainly focused on information quality evaluation. The results not only enrich the information quality research but also can be used to guide ASNS’ platform design and management.
AbdullahNLHamzahNArshadR, et al. (2011) Psychological contract and knowledge sharing among academicians: Mediating role of relational social capital. International Business Research4(4): 231–241.
2.
AmjadTDaudAAljohaniNR (2018) Ranking authors in academic social networks: A survey. Library Hi Tech36(1): 97–128.
3.
ArazyOKopakRHadarI (2017) Heuristic principles and differential judgments in the assessment of information quality. Journal of the Association for Information Systems18(5): 404–431.
4.
AzeroualOSaakeGSchallehnE (2018) Analyzing data quality issues in research information systems via data profiling. International Journal of Information Management41(8): 50–56.
5.
BagozziRPDabholkarPA (1994) Consumer recycling goals and their effect on decisions to recycle: A means-end chain analysis. Psychology and Marketing11(4): 313–340.
6.
BanerjeeSAlqaheriHHassanienAE (2010) Mining social networks for viral marketing using fuzzy logic. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 20(1): 24-28.
7.
BardakciSArslanOUnverTK, et al (2018) How scholars use academic social networking services. Information Development34(4): 334–345.
8.
BishopJ (2007) Increasing participation in online communities: A framework for human-computer interaction. Computers in Human Behavior23(4): 1881–1893.
9.
BurtRS (1978) Applied network analysis. Sociological Methods and Research7(2): 123–130.
10.
CapozzaDFalvoROrlandoA (2003) Beliefs about Internet: Methods of elicitation and measurement. Papers on Social Representations12: 1–14.
11.
ChenIY (2007) The factors influencing members’ continuance intentions in professional virtual communities – A longitudinal study. Journal of Information Science33(4): 451–467.
12.
CorvelloVGeveseAVerteramoS (2014) Knowledge sharing among users of scientific social networking platforms. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications261: 369–380.
13.
CoxDF (1962) The measurement of information value: A study in consumer decision-making. Emerging Concepts in Marketing: 413–421.
14.
DeloneWHMcLeanER (2004) Measuring e-commerce success: Applying the DeLone and McLean Information Systems Success Model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce9(1): 31–47.
15.
ElsayedAM (2016) The use of academic social networks among Arab researchers. Social Science Computer Review34(3): 378–391.
16.
EnglishLP (1999) Improving Data Warehouse and Business Information Quality: Methods for Reducing Costs and Increasing Profits. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
17.
EvansJS BT (1989) Bias in Human Reasoning: Causes and Consequences. Brighton: Erlbaum.
18.
EysenbachGPowellJKussO, et al. (2002) Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web. Journal of the American Medical Association287(20): 2691–2700.
19.
FangJGeorgeBShaoY, et al. C (2016) Affective and cognitive factors influencing repeat buying in e-commerce. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications19: 44–55.
20.
FlanaginAJMetzgerMJ (2007) Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In: MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (eds) Digital Media, Youth and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–27.
21.
FlanaginAJMetzgerMJ (2000) Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly77(3): 515–540.
22.
FleissJL (1981) Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
23.
GenglerCEReynoldsTJ (1995) Consumer understanding and advertising strategy: Analysis and strategic translation of laddering data. Journal of Advertising Research35(4): 19–33.
24.
GhasemaghaeiMHassaneinK (2016) A macro model of online information quality perceptions: A review and synthesis of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior55: 972–991.
25.
GoodwinSJengWHeD (2015) Changing communication on ResearchGate through interface updates. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology ASIS&T Annual Meeting51(1): 1–4.
26.
GruzdAStavesKWilkA (2012) Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Computers in Human Behavior28(6): 2340–2350.
27.
GutmanJ (1982) A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing46(2): 60–72.
28.
HoffmannCPLutzCMeckelM (2015) A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology67(4): 1–11.
29.
JengWHeDJiangJ (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 Technology66(5): 890–904.
30.
JengWDesautelsSHeD, et al. (2017) Information exchange on an academic social networking site: A multidiscipline comparison on ResearchGate Q&A. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology68(3): 638–652.
31.
JungY (2014) What a smartphone is to me: Understanding user values in using smartphones. Information Systems Journal24(4): 299–321.
32.
JungYKangH (2010) User goals in social virtual worlds: A means-end chain approach. Computers in Human Behavior26(2): 218–225.
33.
JungYPawlowskiSD (2014) Virtual goods real goals: Exploring means-end goal structures of consumers in social virtual worlds. Information and Management51(5): 520–531.
34.
JungYPawlowskiSDKimHW (2017) Exploring associations between young adults’ Facebook use and psychological well-being: A goal hierarchy approach. International Journal of Information Management37(1): 1391–1404.
35.
KadriuA (2013) Discovering value in academic social networks: A case study in ResearchGate. ITI International conference on information technology interfaces, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 24–27 June 2013, pp. 123–145. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
36.
KahnBKStrongDMWangRY (2002) Information quality benchmarks: Product and service performance. Communications of the ACM45(4): 184–192.
37.
KimDJFerrinDLRaoHR (2008) A trust-based consumer decision making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust perceived risk and their antecedents. Decision Support Systems44(2): 544–564.
38.
KlenoskyDB (2002) The ‘pull’ of tourism destinations: A means-end investigation. Journal of Travel Research40(4): 396–403.
39.
LillrankP (2003) The quality of information. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management20(6): 691–703.
40.
LiuZ (2004) Perceptions of credibility of scholarly information on the Web. Information Processing and Management40(6): 1027–1038.
41.
LiuZLiuLLiH (2012) Determinants of information retweeting in microblogging. Internet Research Electronic Networking Applications and Policy22(4): 443–466.
42.
MaiJE (2013) The quality and qualities of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology64(4): 675–688.
43.
MessingSWestwoodSJ (2014) Selective exposure in the age of social media endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research41(8): 1042–1063.
44.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJMeddersR (2010) Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication60(3): 413–439.
45.
MyersMDNewmanM (2007) The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft. Information and Organization17(1): 2–26.
46.
NewellASimonH (1972) Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
47.
PaiPArnottDC (2013) User adoption of social networking sites: Eliciting uses and gratifications through a means-end approach. Computers in Human Behavior29(3): 1039–1053.
48.
PeffersKTuunanenT (2005) Planning for IS applications: A practical information theoretical method and case study in mobile financial services. Information and Management42(3): 483–501.
49.
PietersRBaumgartnerHAllenD (1995) A means-end chain approach to consumer goal structures. International Journal of Research in Marketing12(3): 227–244.
50.
PieterseEMeishar-TalH (2016) Academics’ use of academic social networking sites: The case of ResearchGate and Academia.edu. In: European distance and e-learning network conference EDEN (eds TeixeiraAM, et al.), Budapest, Hungary, 14–17 June 2016, pp. 19–24. Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates.
51.
PostenAMussweilerT (2017) That certain something! Focusing on similarities reduces judgmental uncertainty. Cognition 165(August): 121–125.
52.
PowJLiSC (2015) The effect of students’ perceptions of internet information quality on their use of internet information in inquiry-based learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology31(4): 439–457.
53.
ReynoldsTJOlsonJC (2001) Understanding Consumer Decision Making: The Means-End Approach to Marketing and Advertising Strategy. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 3–20.
54.
RiehSYDanielsonDR (2007) Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology41(1): 307–364.
55.
SavolainenR (2011) Judging the quality and credibility of information in Internet discussion forums. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology62(7): 1243–1256.
56.
ScottJ (1991) Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. London: SAGE.
57.
ShiZRuiHWhinstonAB (2014) Content sharing in a social broadcasting environment: Evidence from twitter. MIS Quarterly38(1): 123–142.
58.
SpencePRLachlanKASpatesSA, et al. (2013) Intercultural differences in responses to health messages on social media from spokespeople with varying levels of ethnic identity. Computers in Human Behavior29(3): 1255–1259.
59.
SundarSS (2008) The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In: MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (eds) Digital Media, Youth and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 73–100.
60.
TanFBHunterMG (2002) The repertory grid technique: A method for the study of cognition in information systems. MIS Quarterly26(1): 39–57.
61.
ThelwallMKoushaK (2015) ResearchGate: Disseminating communicating and measuring Scholarship?Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology66(5): 876–889.
62.
WangRYStrongDM (1996) Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers?Journal of Management Information Systems12(4): 5–33.
63.
WuHYLinCCLiCL, et al. (2010) A study of bank customers’ perceived usefulness of adopting online banking. Global Journal of Business Research4(3): 101–108.
64.
YanWZhangY (2018) Research universities on the ResearchGate social networking site: An examination of institutional differences research activity level and social networks formed. Journal of Informetrics12(1): 385–400.
65.
YanWZhangYEggheL (2018) Research universities on the ResearchGate social networking site: An examination of institutional differences research activity level and social networks formed. Journal of Informetrics12(1): 385–400.
66.
YuMCWuYCJAlhalabiW, et al. (2016) ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers?Computers in Human Behavior55: 1001–1006.
67.
ZhangHXuX (2015) Nonnegative cross-media recoding of visual-auditory content for social media analysis. Multimedia Tools and Applications74(2): 577–593.
68.
ZhangWWattsS (2004) Knowledge adoption in online communities of practice. In: Proceedings of international conference on information systems ICIS 2004, Seattle Washington USA: 96–109. Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2003/9/ (accessed 13 August 2019).
69.
ZhaoCXuXPengX, et al. (2018) Understanding the determinants and dynamic process of user exodus in social networking sites: Evidence from kaixin001. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology69(4): 1–13.
