Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Digital platforms have established new arenas for scholarly communication. The two Academic Social Networking Sites (ASNSs) ResearchGate and Academia.edu provide infrastructures that fit into the basic structure of the predigital scholarly communication system. Drawing on infrastructures and organizations as significant features of the scholarly communication system and digital platforms, this article seeks to outline how platform-based scholarly communication relates to the predigital scholarly communication system. The ASNS were analyzed qualitatively by conducting an interface-walkthrough. The results show how the ASNS (1) represent novel infrastructures and organizations for scholarly communication, (2) generate new, complementary subfunctions for scholarly communication that challenge boundaries of formal and informal scholarly communication, and (3) distinguish from established scholarly communication infrastructures and organizations by relying on platform mechanisms such as network effects, commercialization and control of data.

Keywords

platformization mediatization academic social networking site science communication infrastructures organizations

Introduction

Scholarly communication¹ is a key element in modern academia, concerning the communication, circulation, and innovation of scientific knowledge (Taubert & Weingart, 2017). This process is structured by the scholarly communication system, which captures the entirety of “scientific information exchange as a system of social interaction among scientists” in an “orderly manner” (Garvey & Griffith, 1967, p. 1011). Since developments in the digital transformation impact upon all spheres of life, scholarly communication and its structuring system do not remain unaffected. Consequently, various new platforms for academic needs have been established in the last two decades (Da Silva Neto & Chiarini, 2023; Fecher et al., 2024). This contribution focuses on digital platforms for scholars as novel infrastructures and organizations for scholarly communication.

Digital platforms are understood as “(re-)programmable digital infrastructures that facilitate and shape personalised interactions among end-users and complementors, organised through the systematic collection, algorithmic processing, monetisation, and circulation of data” (Poell et al., 2019, p. 5). Accompanied by processes of digital transformation and particularly datafication (van Dijck, 2014), platforms have inevitably become actors in wider society (van Dijck et al., 2018). Digital platforms are not static entities. Their processual character has been elaborated on by the concept of platformization, which describes the impact of digital platforms on economic, societal, and cultural spheres of life (Poell et al., 2019). Thus, platformization becomes relevant for scholarly communication.

Importantly, academic social networking sites (ASNSs) such as ResearchGate or Academia.edu have established new arenas for scholarly communication: They provide digital infrastructures that enable scholars to disseminate their work, gather feedback from other scholars, and present their personal scholarly profiles to different audiences (Jordan, 2019; Thiele & Lüthje, 2022). With monthly web visitors of 64.31 million (Academia.edu) and 165.89 million (ResearchGate), these two for-profit platforms are regarded as the most popular ASNS (Da Silva Neto & Chiarini, 2023). Furthermore, the infrastructures of both platforms are maintained by commercial organizations that target scholars as their main users and fit into the basic structures of the scholarly communication system.

Recent research considers how science is communicated on more generic digital platforms such as Instagram or X (formerly Twitter) (Huber et al., 2019; Waller & Gugganig, 2021). Concerning ASNS, research has analyzed their platform practices concerning their potential impact on academic research in terms of increasing commercialization (Fecher et al., 2024). In a literature review, Komljenovic (2019) shows how certain services and features of ASNS keep scholars engaged on the platforms and foster competition. Another strand of research points out how scholars use these platforms for gaining visibility and enhancing their self-promotion (Kapidzic, 2018; Kjellberg & Haider, 2019; Nicholas et al., 2018; Paruschke & Philipps, 2022; Thiele & Lüthje, 2022). For instance, Thiele and Lüthje (2022) found through qualitative interviews with early career researchers that these feel pressured using such platforms to secure tenure and promotion. Although a considerable body of research has focused on investigating the diverse effects, aspects, and uses of ASNS, consequences for the predigital scholarly communication system have so far been disregarded. Since this system is significant for the development and exchange of scientific results (Taubert & Weingart, 2017), this article aims to address the question:

How does platform-based scholarly communication relate to the predigital scholarly communication system?

To answer this research question, the ASNS ResearchGate and Academia.edu were explored using the walkthrough method (Light et al., 2018) to gather information regarding the platforms’ infrastructures and organizations. The collected data were analyzed qualitatively.

The paper is structured as follows: Firstly, the concepts of the scholarly communication system and digital platforms are introduced. A special emphasis is given to their infrastructures and organizations. Secondly, the methods applied are described, and thirdly, the data are presented and discussed. Three conclusions are drawn from this analysis. The results outlined show (1) how the ASNS can be depicted as infrastructures (referring to preplatform subfunctions) and organizations for scholarly communication. On this basis, the discussion points out (2) how the ASNS generate new subfunctions for scholarly communication. Further, it is outlined (3) how mechanisms of platformization distinguish the ASNS from established organizations for scholarly communication. Finally, the findings are concluded and possibilities for future research are outlined.

Conceptual framework: Infrastructures and organizations

Following Science and Technology Studies perspectives, infrastructures are understood as boundary objects that function as transmitters across different contextual conditions while being embedded in social arrangements and technologies (Star, 1999). Moreover, infrastructures are interconnected with organizations (Bowker & Star, 2000). While previous literature has examined ASNS as infrastructures for scholarly communication (Fecher et al., 2024), it has largely overlooked their organizational dimension. Drawing on social systems theory (Kühl, 2013; Luhmann, 2018), organizations are based on decisions that are constituted by personnel, communication channels and programs. In the context of ASNS, this perspective emphasizes how platform organizations are structured and how they shape the infrastructures they provide. By integrating these aspects of social systems theory with the concept of infrastructures, the analysis offers a more comprehensive understanding of the complex relationships between organizations, infrastructures and digital platforms.

The predigital scholarly communication system

This article builds on Taubert and Weingart's (2017) elaborations on the predigital scholarly communication system, highlighting two major functions: (1) the circulation and ordering of truth claims and (2) the attribution of reputation. The mechanisms of these functions developed from letterpress printing and correspondence, leading to the first scientific journals in the 17th century (Ball, 2020). The functions are realized through formal and informal scholarly communication (Garvey & Griffith, 1967, p. 1013). Informal scholarly communication involves social exchanges between scholars developing and implementing their ideas, and is an important prerequisite for formal scholarly communication (Lüthje, 2017). Reputation is also attributed informally through face-to-face feedback. In formal scholarly communication, truth claims are circulated in publications and evaluated via citations (Taubert & Weingart, 2017).

Both informal and formal scholarly communications are characterized by different procedural steps. In reference to Garvey and Griffith (1967, 1972), Lüthje (2017) describes the different (ideal) phases by which informal scholarly communication becomes formal scholarly communication. The planning phase involves the first attempts to develop a research project, the actual research phase is defined by casual conversations with colleagues, and the initial dispersion of research results concerns the move from informal and small settings (e.g., colloquia) to wider audiences at national and international conferences. After the results have been extensively discussed informally, the formal process of publishing starts. In accordance with Taubert & Weingart (2017), formal scholarly communication comprises four subfunctions. The registration of scholarly contributions and new knowledge by scholars, the certification of contributions as they are examined through peer-review and evaluation processes, the dissemination extends the reach within the scientific community, and the archiving of contributions in order to preserve this knowledge (Andermann & Degkwitz, 2004; Kircz & Roosendaal, 1996). These subfunctions require infrastructures for publication, such as journals, monographs, and databases, as well as organizations, such as publishing companies, libraries, repositories, and archives, which maintain the infrastructures and can be understood “within their institutional logic and typical decision-making processes” (Taubert & Weingart, 2017, p. 7).

This predigital scholarly communication system has been influenced by processes of mediatization (Hepp, 2020) and platformization (Poell et al., 2019), which have accelerated the establishment of new strategies and formats for scholarly communication, such as preprints, open access and digital evaluative performance metrics (Ball, 2020; Broer & Hasebrink, 2022; Fähnrich, 2021; Fähnrich & Schäfer, 2020; Neuberger et al., 2021). This paper focuses on digital platforms, particularly ASNS, as new formats within the scholarly communication system.

Digital platforms

The influence of platformization processes on the scholarly communication system can be seen by the increasing number of digital platforms being offered for scholarly communication (Fecher et al., 2024). Infrastructures are highlighted as an essential feature of platforms (Cristofari, 2023; Poell et al., 2019) and affect existing scholarly communication infrastructures as they can “co-exist with infrastructures, and in some cases compete with or even supplant them” (Plantin et al., 2018, p. 301, original emphasis). The ASNS offer infrastructures for the scholarly communication system, and particularly for the subfunctions in terms of registering, certifying, disseminating and archiving research. These infrastructures are maintained, controlled, and curated by organizations (Dolata & Schrape, 2022), which generate profit through advertising or by selling aggregated data as a commercial business (Gillespie, 2010; Srnicek, 2017). In this respect, the ASNS as digital platforms represent infrastructures and organizations for the scholarly communication system. To manifest their success, digital platforms rely on network effects, as users benefit from other users’ interactions (Nieborg & Poell, 2018). In terms of ASNS, these mechanisms influence how scholars communicate while increasing the commercialization of the scholarly communication system.

Accordingly, this article makes use of characteristics of formal scholarly communication and digital platforms by examining the underlying infrastructures and organizations as a conceptual framework (see Figure 1). The analytical distinction between infrastructures and organizations will structure the forthcoming analysis. Additionally, examining their relationship will enable a contextualized interpretation of the results.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework: Infrastructures and organizations.

Methods and data

This article seeks to explore how platformized formats of scholarly communication relate to the predigital scholarly communication system. To do so, ResearchGate and Academia.edu, two of the most widely used ASNS are examined, due to their large user bases and their significant role in facilitating scholarly communication. Platforms with similar services and user groups, e.g., Mendeley, were excluded since they have fewer monthly visitors (Da Silva Neto & Chiarini, 2023)². More generic social networking sites that also play an important role in scholarly communication, such as X (formerly Twitter) (Guenther et al., 2023; Jünger & Fähnrich, 2020) were disregarded since they do not exclusively target the scientific community. On ResearchGate and Academia.edu users can create an account and use the services provided via web interfaces or mobile phone apps. Both ASNS offer multiple functions and services for scholars to communicate their research, connect with other researchers, and present themselves online (Manca, 2018).

Despite these similarities, ResearchGate and Academia.edu differ to some extent. For example, ResearchGate is used far more frequently compared to Academia.edu. Concerning academic disciplines, ResearchGate is widely used by natural scientists, while Academia.edu instead targets scholars from the arts and humanities (Jordan, 2019; Manca, 2018). Furthermore, Academia.edu is a freemium service, charging fees for using the premium version, while ResearchGate remains free. Other distinguishing features of the platforms’ infrastructures are outlined in the next section (see Table 3). These similarities and differences between ResearchGate and Academia.edu are considered valuable for this analysis, as the platforms are comparable while at the same time exhibiting a wide range of characteristics and services.

Data was collected by “walking through” the platforms. The walkthrough method (Light et al., 2018) “allows researchers to systematically and forensically step through a platform or app interface, enabling the close observation of symbolic appeals to users, design logics, and traces of data flows, against the background of the platform's ownership structures and business model” (Burgess, 2021, p. 33), while also considering cultural and technological aspects (Light et al., 2018). ResearchGate and Academia.edu were visited to examine how the platforms’ layout and features may influence user behavior. To gather as much information as possible, new user accounts were created on both platforms. This approach helped to reduce biases, as platform algorithms customize content according to individual usage patterns (Duguay & Gold-Apel, 2023).

However, such investigations are never free of technological but also individual biases. All pages and subpages of the ASNS were visited while being logged in, with attention being paid to the infrastructures and organizational self-presentation. To collect the observed information for the data analysis, screenshots of each page were made and saved as PDF documents. In total, 366 PDF documents were captured in April 2023 and updated in March 2024 (ACD: 170 and RG: 198).³ During this period, ResearchGate updated its organizational self-presentation, and additional blog articles were added to both platforms. However, the core services and functions remained unchanged. Since digital platforms continuously evolve, full comprehensiveness of the data cannot be guaranteed. Nonetheless, a certain degree of data saturation for the analysis could have been achieved (Saunders et al., 2018). During data collection, the documents were screened in regard to the conceptual framework, focusing on information about the infrastructures and organizations of ASNS. Data collection concluded when the information became redundant. Based on the platform structures and document contents, different categories of data were identified (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Overview of Analyzed Documents Collected on the Academic Social Networking Sites (ASNS).

	Services and functions	Organizational self-presentation	Legal documents	Support	Blogs and press coverage
ResearchGate	68	22	9	19	79
Academia.edu	40	15	4	48	62
Total	108	37	13	67	141

The PDF documents were analyzed qualitatively (Mayring, 2019) using the program MAXQDA. The analysis followed a structured process by using deductively developed categories (see Table 2). These categories align with the conceptual framework (see Section 2). Infrastructures consider the services provided by the platforms that refer to scholarly communication infrastructures, including the four subfunctions of formal scholarly communication: registration, certification, dissemination and archiving (Taubert & Weingart, 2017). Organizations encompass information on the organizational structure of the ASNS, including personnel, communication channels, programs and represent the platform organizations that provide infrastructures for scholarly communication. To ensure the applicability of the coding categories and consistency in the coding procedure, 20 documents from different platforms and categories were coded in a pretest which helped to establish intracoder reliability. Although it was not possible to assess intercoder reliability due to the involvement of only one researcher in the analysis, the systematic coding approach and the pretest provide a foundation for the accuracy and consistency of the findings. The definitions of the categories and subcategories were refined before the full coding process was applied.

Table 2.

Categories for the Analysis: Infrastructures and Organization.

Category	Explanation	Example
Infrastructures	Includes platform features that can be assigned to one of the four subfunctions of formal scholarly communication, i.e., registration, certification, dissemination and archiving.	Uploading scholarly content, Profile function, Evaluation via peer-review, Evaluation via metrics, Etc.
Organizations	Implies organizational personnel, communication channels, and programs presented on the web presence.	Information on the platform's goals, The CEO and staff members, The business model, Etc.

Within this context, the upcoming sections first present the results of the walkthrough by providing information on the observed infrastructures and organizations for scholarly communication. Secondly, these results are discussed with a focus on the relationship between platformized scholarly communication and the predigital scholarly communication system regarding (a) new subfunctions and (b) platformized mechanisms that distinguish the ASNS from existing service organizations such as publishers.

Results

Infrastructures of ASNS and subfunctions of formal scholarly communication

As stated above, the subfunctions of formal scholarly communication rely on infrastructures. This section outlines how the infrastructures of ResearchGate and Academia.edu can be assigned to the four subfunctions of the predigital scholarly communication system.

Registration

In formal scholarly communication, registration is understood as the verified “time of submission” (Taubert & Weingart, 2017, p. 4) of new knowledge by scholars. In the predigital scholarly communication system, this referred usually to the publication of research results within scientific journals. The ASNS extent this understanding of registration. Both ResearchGate and Academia.edu are involved in this process. One service provided by the ASNS is that scholars can upload different types of scientific content that can be downloaded by registered users. The platforms’ infrastructures encourage the submission of informal content in the form of unpublished papers and alternative scholarly outputs, such as drafts, preprints, presentations, posters, data, or research material (RG 176, ACD 119) in order to “increase visibility” of the research (RG 48).

In addition to this informal content, scientific articles that have already been published in academic journals are also shared by scholars on the ASNS. These can either be uploaded as a preprint, a document, or as the official version from the respective journal or publisher. As there are no restrictions on these uploads, a large number of journal articles have been registered. On ResearchGate 156 million papers (RG 12) have been uploaded, and on Academia.edu 55 million (ACD 5). However, this has resulted in problems for both ASNS, as publishers like Elsevier have previously taken down papers due to copyright infringements (ACD 50, RG 197). Consequently, the platforms emphasize that uploading published articles is always contingent on the copyright agreement with the respective publisher, emphasizing that members “do not transfer or assign copyright to us” (RG 5) by uploading content, but rather have to check the “agreement(s) you have with your publisher or other rights owner” (RG 5). As a solution to these copyright infringements, both platforms have worked out agreements with publishers that allow scholars to upload the published or prepublished version of their paper, and “90% of journals allow uploading of either the preprint or the postprint of your paper” (ACD 1).

Certification

The certification of scholarly knowledge is the “recognition of a contribution […] usually by means of evaluation” (Taubert & Weingart, 2017, p. 4). This process contains several feedback mechanisms, such as the extensive peer-review of articles before they are published in academic journals, as well as metrical forms of evaluation after publication. In terms of peer-review, ResearchGate and Academia.edu provide their own informal feedback functions via their interfaces. For example, scholars can state their reasons for downloading a paper “to improve communication between authors and readers. The way it works is that readers can leave messages for authors when they download papers” (ACD 77). In addition, users can comment and review all types of uploaded content (RG 72), which allows for a “more rigorous and effective peer-review system” (ACD 76).

Peer-review is only one part of the certification process, and so other means of evaluating scholarly outputs as the prerequisite for establishing a reputation also have to be considered. Taking into account the increasing assessment of scholarly communication (Taubert & Weingart, 2017), various evaluative formats have been developed in the past few years (Wilsdon et al., 2015). Following already established metrics, ResearchGate and Academia.edu have become integral actors in these developments. By using platform-immanent data (e.g., user activities on the platform), the ASNS have established platform-immanent scores and metrics. One example of this is the quantification of views: platform members can see how often and by whom their work has been read, cited, or recommended (RG 139, ACD 85), and users on Academia.edu can see the data on their profile visitors, including their institutional affiliation and position (ACD 85). In terms of publication metrics, Academia.edu calculates paper citations as well as so-called “mentions,” which consist of the number of internal citations as well as references in uploaded sources, such as conference brochures (ACD 193).

In addition to a platform-immanent calculated h-index, ResearchGate also aggregates the novel ResearchGate Interest Score (RG 139). This replaced the ResearchGate Score in August 2022 as “some members were frustrated with the RG Score's intransparency” (RG 77). It is claimed that the Research Interest Score is more “intuitive and transparent so that researchers can quickly understand and use it” (RG 77). The new score includes reads (full text and partial), recommendations, and citations, each having a different weighting in the calculation. For example, a full-text read is weighted higher than a partial read of only one page, with these differences being identified by tracing the reader's behavior. Moreover, it does not count self-citations (RG 77).

Dissemination

In the predigital scholarly communication system, dissemination refers to “the availability of information within a scientific (communication) community” (Taubert & Weingart, 2017, p. 4), which makes it possible to produce new truth claims. The ASNS provides multiple ways of disseminating scholarly knowledge, results, and information. Formal scholarly communication is disseminated as the platforms provide infrastructures that allow for the registration of publications, which are then openly available for all researchers who are registered users of the platform. In contrast to other formal service organizations for scholarly communication, such as traditional journals and publishing houses, the ASNS makes it possible to share unlimited publications and other scholarly content (e.g., preprints, presentations, and research material), making these accessible free of charge.

In addition to the dissemination of published articles, the preparation of informal scholarly communication is also part of the platforms’ infrastructures. Regarding the planning and research phase, ResearchGate has established so-called “labs,” which aim to foster more focused and target-oriented communication by concentrating on a specific research topic. A lab consists of a senior researcher and a group of scientists working together online, while simultaneously conducting experiments offline (RG 185). In addition, to facilitate the exchange of all kinds of research ideas, questions, and results, ResearchGate and Academia.edu offer different services, such as direct messaging via a messenger (RG 111, ACD 102) and a Q&A forum (RG 188) for the discussion of specific topics. Additionally, groups of followers are set up by the platforms, which Academia.edu designates as “your network” (ACD 121). Users are therefore able to see who else is working in similar disciplines and fields of research, and can follow those scholars. By doing so, they can contact these scholars and will receive updates on their latest work.

Another aspect of ASNS that relates to the dissemination function of the scholarly communication system is the way in which academic self-presentation is used to increase visibility. ResearchGate and Academia.edu provide their users with profiles to communicate their professional identity, affiliations, achievements, and projects. In addition, both ASNS display an international register of scientists (ACD 119, RG 176). Within a timeline that appears on each ASNS’ start page, scholars have the option to actively share information regarding their current research, keep other scholars up to date, and comment on other users’ posts (RG 178, ACD 121). Both functions, the profiles as well as the timelines, allow scholars to remain informed about new scholarly content and to promote themselves, or as ResearchGate puts it,

“researchers know, getting results from their studies is only half the battle – getting those results seen by other researchers is the other half. […] the more your work is seen and shared, the greater impact it can have. So raising your visibility is key” (RG 53).

Even if these infrastructures increase the pressure of being visible online, the platforms refer to them as possibilities for cooperation: “With these additions, you now have the tools to more accurately present yourself and get more people interested in you and your work, leading to new opportunities to connect” (RG 81). They are also a way of impacting individual outreach, with Academia.edu stating that the “individual is increasingly going to be the person who drives the distribution of their own work” (ACD 45).

Archiving

Archiving refers to the subfunction of scholarly communication that involves “the ongoing stabilisation of a knowledge inventory” (Taubert & Weingart, 2017, p. 4). Furthermore, archiving also functions as the precondition for the development of new truth claims as well as the basis for evaluating different units of the science system, e.g., scientists or research institutions. As they allow scholars to upload publications and other scientific content, ResearchGate and Academia.edu provide an expanded repository of scholarly content, while simultaneously functioning as point of reference for scholars to prove their credibility. This emergence of an open archive of scholarly knowledge is made explicit by the platforms, with both referring to the opening and democratizing of science as their organizational goal. Academia.edu states that “Academia's goal is to ensure that every paper, ever written, is on the internet, available for free” (ACD 5) and ResearchGate asserts that their aim is to “make research open to all” (RG 10).

This section showed how the ASNS offer services that fit into the subfunctions of formal scholarly communication (see Table 3). Overall, ResearchGate and Academia.edu both fulfill functions of the scholarly communication system by providing infrastructures for the submission of research and simultaneously increasing scholars’ visibility, which can affect their reputation. However, these services differ from the preplatform scholarly communication system as they do not primarily involve publishing. This will be discussed more extensively at a later stage (see “Discussion: Platformized Scholarly Communication” section).

Table 3.

Infrastructures of Academic Social Networking Sites (ASNS) That Align with Subfunctions of the Scholarly Communication System.

Subfunction	Feature/service	ResearchGate	Academia.edu
Registration	Uploading unpublished content	X	X
Registration	Uploading published content	X	X
Certification	Informal feedback	X	X
	Analytics of profile visitors	-	X
	Platform-immanent metrics	X	X
Dissemination	Sharing of scholarly content	X	X
	Direct messages	X	X
	Labs and Q&A	X	-
	Profiles	X	X
	Timeline	X	X
Archiving	Repository for scholarly content	X	X

Organizations for scholarly communication

As described above, infrastructures for the scholarly communication system and digital platform infrastructures are both maintained, controlled, and curated by organizations. As this section shows, ResearchGate and Academia.edu are organizations of scholarly communication.

The formal organizations of ResearchGate and Academia.edu have become at least partially visible on their websites, which include self-descriptive “About us” pages (ACD 5, RG 10). The ASNS’ web presentations include information about personnel working in the organization such as their CEOs and employees, including their names and organizational functions (ACD 9, RG 62). Further organizational units, such as products, customer support, and data science, are also displayed (ACD 9, RG 62) representing communication channels. At several points, the personnel's motivation for contributing to the science system is emphasized, for example on its career site ResearchGate encourages applicants to “Join a team of people dedicated to making science faster, fairer, and easier to discover and access” (RG 141). Notably, this claim coincides with the ASNS's self-described organizational program or objective, which they stress is their intention to support science and scholars in multiple ways. In particular, Academia.edu claims “to accelerate the world's research” (ACD 5), while ResearchGate describes its focuses as enhancing scholarly cooperation by striving to “connect the world of science” (RG 10). Furthermore, the platforms continue to expand upon these goals. For example, ResearchGate states that “We strive to make science faster, fairer, and easier to discover and access” (RG 10), and Academia.edu asserts that:

“The mission of Academia.edu is to accelerate the world's research. Our goal is to speed up research in every domain—ﬁnding a solution to climate change; ﬁnding cures for diseases; evolving artiﬁcial intelligence. We want to accelerate research in all these ﬁelds, and others too” (ACD 5).

Information on their business models remains limited. Academia.edu has a so-called “freemium” model, which lets the users decide if they want to use the platform for free or buy extended services (e.g., advanced search, bulk download, personal website) by paying an additional fee (ACD 124). ResearchGate offers all services to individual scholars for free. On their website, ResearchGate states that they are an investor-funded startup, which has allowed them to expand through the development of marketing and recruitment services. However, they emphasize: “We never forget that our members create value in the network. Therefore, in all our decisions about our business, we put the researcher first, and our purpose above our profits” (RG 10). The further use of data and metadata is addressed in the ASNS’ data privacy policies, where the different purposes of data usage are listed. These include improving services and providing the users with “content and advertisements” (ACD 2). To achieve this, the platforms gather data and analytics from publicly available tools such as Google Analytics. Furthermore, the site states that the collected data is shared with third parties “for a variety of business purposes” (ACD 2) and the “optimization of business processes” (RG 6), with any other the details remaining undefined.

The platform organizations present themselves as modern organizations that primarily serve scientific needs. In this way, they appear to be service organizations for scholarly communication that “maintain the publication infrastructure, provide resources for its operation and ensure that the infrastructure is able to fulfill the respective tasks for the formal scientific communication system” (Taubert & Weingart, 2017, p. 5).

Discussion: Platformized scholarly communication

Based on the results, the discussion turns to (a) how the subfunctions of formal scholarly communication can be redeveloped through platformization and (b) how ASNS represents a new organizational format for scholarly communication in relation to the predigital scholarly communication system.

Updated subfunctions for scholarly communication

The infrastructures for scholarly communication provided by the ASNS can be allocated to the different subfunctions of formal scholarly communication (see “Infrastructures of ASNS and Subfunctions of Formal Scholarly Communication” section). However, the results show that the platforms’ services also offer new formats for scholarly communication that are not directly related to these subfunctions. Deriving from these novel services and features, platformized subfunctions of scholarly communication can be reformulated into the categories: Collaboration, evaluation, promotion, and incorporation. These subfunctions do not occur in a predefined order, but rather can happen at any stage within the communication process.

Collaboration

In accordance with the planning and research phase in informal scholarly communication (Garvey & Griffith, 1967, 1972), the ASNS offer extended possibilities for collaborating during these stages, while emphasizing networking across borders as an organizational objective. Before platforms like ResearchGate or Academia.edu existed, these networks developed through co-working in organizations, at conferences, or in colloquia. This communication happened either in person, via telephone, or (e-)mail (Lüthje, 2017). On ResearchGate and Academia.edu, communication occurs via direct messages. These can not only be used for disseminating scholarly content, but also to develop new scholarly content while collaborating with other researchers. The same occurs in the labs and Q&A sessions provided by ResearchGate. Scholars from all over the world can exchange and develop ideas on the platforms, and these forms of communication are easy, fast, and informal. Accordingly, the platforms make it possible to collaborate internationally and across disciplines, and by integrating scholars from non-western(ized) countries, even have the potential to contribute to ongoing attempts at “decolonizing Western science” (Held, 2023).

Evaluation

The ASNS offers diverse tools for evaluating published and unpublished scholarly content, such as (informal) peer-review and platform-immanent metrics, which differ from the established certification process. Peer-review of unpublished content is a stage in preparing a scholarly publication, which previously happened in informal research groups and through communication with peers or supervisors (Lüthje, 2017). In this regard, the ASNS provides possibilities for more direct peer-review, and by replicating the mechanisms of the traditional peer-review system, enable the discussion of truth claims prior to publication.

In addition to peer-review, ResearchGate and Academia.edu offer platform-immanent metrics and scores that evaluate the uploaded (un-)published scholarly content. These can be situated within a wider discussion on the integration of metrics into scholarly evaluation (Wilsdon et al., 2015). The platform-immanent metrics are presented as an alternative to the traditional metrics provided by Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar, which have all received extensive criticism in past years. Factors such as the lack of comparability across disciplines (Harzing, 2019) and databases, questionable self-citation practices, possible manipulation of Google Scholar, and no distinction between negative and positive citations (Fraumann & Mutz, 2021) have all resulted in claims that these metrics should be used more cautiously (Hicks et al., 2015).

Moreover, a non-transparent calculation procedure and lack of verifiability have also been reported (Hauck, 2019). The ASNS try to counter these deficiencies by presenting detailed information on the procedure for calculating their platform-immanent metrics (see Section 4.1). The claimed transparency of their calculation procedures can be interpreted as strategic communication by the service organizations aimed at trust building. However, this assumed transparency remains unreliable, as the calculation procedure is regulated by the platform organizations’ own algorithms, which are not made publicly accessible. These platform-immanent evaluation algorithms reflect the transformation in evaluation expertise, criteria, and practices caused by digitalization (Krüger, 2022).

Self-promotion

Another important function provided by the ASNS is scholarly self-promotion. In times of increasing pressure for scholars to be visible in order to get jobs and funding as well as to build their reputations, ResearchGate and Academia.edu offer users dedicated opportunities to enhance their profiles. Similar to career platforms like LinkedIn or Xing, ASNS allows for the creation of user profiles and timelines. With an awareness of the significance of online visibility for scholars (Kjellberg & Haider, 2019; Thiele & Lüthje, 2022), the ASNS seeks to affect the attribution of reputation for scholars. Both the profiles and the information regarding profile visitors provide users with direct feedback to help discern whether their self-promotion has been successful. Moreover, the evaluation functions described above also contribute to increasing scholarly visibility, since they have the potential of being used to display the impact of one's own research.

These mechanisms for gaining visibility and potentially increasing reputation can be especially beneficial for early career researchers. Drawing on further mechanisms for gaining scholarly reputation, scientists who are already frequently cited are more likely to continue being cited again and again (Merton, 1968). Moreover, the length of a scholar's career also has an impact on the h-index (Fraumann & Mutz, 2021). This does not merely apply to the quantitative measurement of scholarly performance, but also to other reputational modes such as recognition in scholarly networks or at conferences. Consequently, it is harder for early career researchers to build their reputation (and with it their funding or career opportunities). ResearchGate and Academia.edu purposefully target younger researchers with more limited performance records. The infrastructures they provide replace the past focus on evaluating performance by tracking records with tracking present and future performance by impression management. In this way, the platforms present themselves as vehicles to facilitate visibility through profiles and the distribution of scientific content, as well as providing enhanced opportunities for networking. In addition, they also allow for more comprehensive quantitative evaluation by measuring the impact of all scientific uploads on the platform, regardless of the length of the scholar's academic career. Thus, they create a more inclusive environment for all scholars who are actively engaged in the platforms, and especially help early career researchers to gain visibility and possibly enhance their reputations. However, this also implies that scholars who are not registered on the platforms remain invisible (Metag, 2021), which increases the pressure to be actively engaged.

Incorporation

The incorporation of different types of scholarly content is perhaps one of the most important new, platformized functions for scholarly communication. As scholars can upload different types of (un-)published scholarly content (see Section 4.1), the ASNS expands the possibilities of the scholarly communication system, allowing scholars agency to decide themselves the type and amount of content they want to share. By facilitating the uploading of already published content, the ASNS interfere with the infrastructures of publishers, which are the more traditional service organizations involved in this process, especially with regard to the ownership of articles. In contrast to the systemized, complex, and time-consuming publication process, uploading scholarly content on ASNS is easy, fast, and has fewer restrictions. This enables ResearchGate and Academia.edu to make use of the formal scholarly communication system by providing peer-reviewed and certificated scientific articles without being involved in the traditional publication process. Furthermore, uploading unpublished content allows for communication about more diverse research outputs, such as drafts, presentations, methods, etc.

The ASNS thus encourages the movement towards open science and open access. The opening up of science is presumed to be one of the most important transformations in the communication of scientific work (Heise & Pearce, 2020), and is being politically promoted (European Commission, 2021). However, the actual openness of ResearchGate and Academia.edu can be questioned, as the platforms themselves are closed entities that require registration. The formal and informal scholarly communication content is therefore not truly available for free, as users automatically pay with their data. Furthermore, the archiving of this data on digital platforms is not entirely secure. It has been stated already that the ASNS had to take articles down due to copyright restrictions of the original publishers. In addition, ResearchGate and Academia.edu continuously change and optimize their infrastructures in alignment with their users’ needs, meaning that in the future certain services and functions and their associated data might be removed.

Deriving from the infrastructures for scholarly communication on the ASNS, new subfunctions of scholarly communication have been developed (see Table 4). It should be noted that these categories are not mutually exclusive but rather overlap. For instance, platform-immanent metrics can also be used for self-promotion. The new subfunctions do not replace the traditional ones but rather complement them. They make it apparent that the formal and informal scholarly communication systems are becoming less distinguishable. Thus, scholarly communication practices might be transformed as the ASNS offer possibilities for continuously being engaged with research and other scholars. In addition, the promotion of scholarly outputs and scholars themselves are becoming an essential feature of the platforms. The rules for participating in the scholarly communication system are also different, as researchers have to create user accounts and actively engage on the platforms. These infrastructures seek to serve the scholarly communication system while providing scholars with more autonomy and control of their own visibility. However, they also serve the commercial interests of the platform providers.

Table 4.

New, Platformized Subfunctions Added by the Academic Social Networking Sites (ASNS).

New Subfunction	Feature/service	Old Subfunction
Collaboration	Direct messages	Dissemination
Collaboration	Labs and Q&A	Dissemination
Evaluation	Informal feedback	Certification
Evaluation	Platform-immanent metrics	Certification
Self-promotion	Profiles	Dissemination
	Timeline	Dissemination
	Analytics of profile visitors	Certification
Incorporation	Uploading unpublished content	Registration
	Uploading published content	Registration
	Repository for scholarly content	Archiving

New organizational formats for scholarly communication

The results demonstrate that ResearchGate and Academia.edu are service organizations for scholarly communication. While the infrastructures that they provide complement existing subfunctions, the platform organizations also reflect additional organizational formats for scholarly communication. This section outlines how the platforms can be distinguished from existing service organizations for scholarly communication. Based on contemporary platformization discourses, three mechanisms are outlined: Network effects, data commodification, and control of platform organizations.

Network effects

ResearchGate and Academia.edu build on network effects, which are characteristic of digital platforms (Nieborg & Poell, 2018; Srnicek, 2017). Positive direct network effects are generated within the subfunctions for scholarly communication they provide as users benefit from the platform usage of other users. If more scholars are actively engaged on the platforms, the chances for successfully collaborating are higher. For example, a user is more likely to receive reliable answers on the Q&A forum if more users are contributing to it. The evaluation of scholarly content is also more meaningful if more scholars participate. In terms of scholarly (self-)promotion, users benefit from other scholars paying attention to their profiles and uploaded content. In addition, users are advantaged by the uploads of other users, especially concerning already published papers, as Academia.edu or ResearchGate are sometimes the only means to access these papers for free. Accordingly, the subfunctions for scholarly communication provided by the platforms ensure value for their users, while simultaneously making the platforms more attractive for other, potential users. Unless scholars are actively engaged on these platforms, they will remain invisible (Metag, 2021). Thus, these network effects insert certain pressure on scholars and threaten academic equality. The platforms rely on these network effects to feed into another mechanism: the collection of data for commodification.

Data commodification

Since the advent of academic publishing, commercial interests have existed within the scholarly system. Since the output of these academic publishers today is primarily digitalized, they can be understood as the digital platforms that control scientific journals (Da Silva Neto & Chiarini, 2023; Ma, 2023). This impacts the nature of digital platforms, which have generated new forms of capitalistic value creation mainly through advertising and data collection (Gillespie, 2010; Nachtwey & Staab, 2020; Srnicek, 2017). In this respect, previous literature has already established how scientific platforms intensify the commercialization of science (Fecher et al., 2024; Ma, 2023), which can also be linked to the subfunctions for scholarly communication and organizational self-presentation provided by the ASNS. As outlined in the results, the platform organizations present themselves as modern organizations, dedicated to science. However, monetizing their activities through advertising and data collection, which is considered the platforms’ main income source (Gillespie, 2010; Srnicek, 2017), is presented by the ASNS in an opaque manner. In this way, the ASNS have been able to use their self-presentation to strategically divert attention away from their commercial interests. By offering possibilities for collaborating, evaluating, promoting, and incorporating, a large amount of data and metadata are shared by scholars. To gather as much data as possible, the platforms set incentives to encourage their users to upload scholarly content. Early career researchers are especially under pressure to become more visible. Accordingly, the ASNS present themselves as necessary platforms for increasing job opportunities. The way in which the use of this data can be kept opaque demonstrates the control that these digital platform organizations exert.

Control

Digital platforms present themselves as neutral content providers, while simultaneously externalizing their responsibilities (Gillespie, 2010). In the case of Academia.edu and ResearchGate, this especially concerns their responsibility for uploads of users’ previously published content (see Section 5.1). Considering the conflict with big publishers outlined in the results, the ASNS strategically protect themselves against legal consequences and copyright infringements. In fact, platforms are far from being neutral, but instead actively maintain, control, and curate infrastructures for users (Dolata & Schrape, 2022; Gillespie, 2010). Through opaque algorithms the ASNS impact the different subfunctions for scholarly communication. Scholarly collaboration is affected as the platforms algorithmically regulate which users become visible to whom. This might threaten academic equality.

As outlined above, the ASNS try to make the calculation of platform-immanent metrics transparent, while the algorithms used for these calculations are not traceable. Accordingly, the evaluation of scholarly content is also controlled by ResearchGate and Academia.edu. Regarding the regulation of visibility, scholars’ self-promotion is shaped by the platforms as they determine the algorithms that curate the timelines. Finally, the incorporation of scholarly content does provide a certain amount of autonomy for scholars, since it means that they can decide what they want to upload. Nevertheless, ResearchGate and Academia.edu oversee this uploaded content, implying the possibility of a certain instability within their repository. As the takeover of X (formerly Twitter) by Elon Musk has shown, a platform's ideological alignment impacts upon such developments. In the future, it remains undetermined to what extent the platforms’ focus might shift. Since they oversee what happens with regard to the content and data of formal and informal scholarly communication, they can delete it or start using it for other purposes. Consequently, they are not a stable archive in the same way that, for example, libraries are.

Within network effects as well as commodification and control of data, the relationship between infrastructures and organizations becomes explicit. Since scholars compete for tenure and promotion (Thiele & Lüthje, 2022), the platform organization of the ASNS makes use of this by providing an infrastructure that potentially increases scholars’ visibility by keeping them actively engaged. However, the commodification and control of the resulting data contradicts the organization's goals to make science open and accessible to everyone. Thus, the tension between commercial interests and the scientific mission becomes apparent.

Conclusion

This article contributes to the discourse on platformization of scholarly communication in three ways. Firstly, it demonstrates how ASNS represents new infrastructures and organizations in the context of scholarly communication. It shows how the platforms’ infrastructures adapt the predigital scholarly communication system and its subfunctions. As the objectives stated on the platforms’ websites mainly concern the improvement of scholarly communication, the ASNS represent organizations for this communication. Secondly, this article updates the understanding of the scholarly communication system by redeveloping additional subfunctions of scholarly communication as they are generated by the ASNS. The platforms especially concentrate on functions and services for collaboration, evaluation, self-promotion, and uploading scholarly content. Moreover, the lines between the formal and informal scholarly communication systems become blurred. Thirdly, the distinction between the ASNS and established scholarly communication organizations is outlined. The ASNS rely on network effects, monetize a greater amount of (meta-)data, and control their platforms by using opaque algorithms. Evidently, the platforms establish new rules and alignments. These should not be depicted as replacements for, but rather complementary to, existing infrastructures and organizations.

However, the strong tendency for commercialization within the scholarly communication system should not be underestimated. Since the platforms are depicted as highly critical of the increasing commercialization of science (Fecher et al., 2024), one has to acknowledge that the ASNS strategically make use of deficiencies within the science system. For example, comparable non-commercial services that provide infrastructures for open science, new formats of metrical evaluation, global scholarly collaboration, and self-presentation do not exist to that extent. In this regard, alternatives to commercial platforms, e.g., democratic platform cooperatives supported by governmental structures (Scholz, 2023), become necessary.

“Walking through” (Light et al., 2018) the platforms provided a comprehensive picture of their infrastructures and organizational self-presentation. Nevertheless, the actual impact of ASNS on scholarly communication and reputations requires further empirical investigation. To do this, digital ethnographic approaches could be used to provide insights on how academics use the ASNS for scholarly communication. In doing so, it would be possible to explore whether demographic differences among users on ResearchGate and Academia.edu—such as their scientific disciplines—affect their scholarly communication behavior. Furthermore, it would be interesting to empirically examine whether actors that make decisions based on scholarly reputation, such as funders or research organizations (e.g., universities), do in fact consider academics’ scholarly self-presentation on ASNS. Concerning the opaque processes within the platform organizations, it would also be productive to qualitatively research the internal organizational structures that examine on tensions between commercial goals and scientific missions of ASNS.

Other digital platforms, such as X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn, are not included in this analysis, but are important for science communication (Davies & Hara, 2017). An investigation of these platforms regarding academic utilization would also contribute to the discussion of the platformization of scholarly communication. Finally, an analysis of digital platforms always provides only a temporary assessment. This is because digital platforms continuously develop, invent new infrastructures, and can even change purpose. In light of current political and legal debates regarding the regulation of platforms (Flew, 2021), it remains unclear how digital platforms might develop in the future. Specifically, the European Union is attempting to use the Digital Service Act (DSA) (2022) to increase platforms’ transparency and restrict targeted advertising through the use of sensitive data, and the consequences of this for ResearchGate and Academia.edu are still unpredictable.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical statement

This study did not involve the direct collection of data from human subjects. It relied solely on publicly available information from social networking sites. Therefore, individual informed consent was not required, as no personal or identifiable data were collected or analyzed.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Volkswagen Foundation.

ORCID iD

Stella Köchling

Notes

Author biography

Stella Köchling is a PhD researcher in media and communication studies at the Freie Universität Berlin and the German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW). Her research focuses on the intersections of scholarly communication, organizational communication and digital transformation using mainly qualitative (digital) methods. Her dissertation project investigates the structures, strategies, and decision-logics of science-specific platforms and universities concerning scholarly communication.

References

Andermann

Degkwitz

(2004). Neue Ansätze in der wissenschaftlichen Informationsversorgung. Ein Überblick über Initiativen und Unternehmungen auf dem Gebiet des elektronischen Publizierens. Historical Social Research, 29(1), 6–55. https://doi.org/10.18452/19435

Ball

(2020). Wissenschaftskommunikation im Wandel. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-31541-2

Bowker

G. C.

Star

S. L.

(2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences (First paperback edition). MIT Press.

Broer

Hasebrink

(2022). Wissenschaftskommunikation als kommunikative Figuration. Ein konzeptioneller Rahmen für die empirische Untersuchung von Domänen der Wissenschaftskommunikation. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 70(3), 234–255. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2022-3-234

Bucchi

(Ed.). (2014). Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Burgess

(2021). Platform studies. In Cunningham

Craig

(Eds.), Creator culture (pp. 21–38). New York University Press.

Cristofari

(2023). The politics of platformization: Amsterdam dialogues on platform theory. Theory on demand, Vol. 48. Institute of Network Cultures.

Da Silva Neto

V. J.

Chiarini

(2023). The platformization of science: Towards a scientific digital platform taxonomy. Minerva, 61(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09477-6

Davies

S. R.

Hara

(2017). Public science in a wired world: How online media are shaping science communication. Science Communication, 39(5), 563–568. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017736892

10.

Dolata

Schrape

J. F.

(2022). Plattform-architekturen. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 74(S1), 11–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-022-00826-7

11.

Duguay

Gold-Apel

(2023). Stumbling blocks and alternative paths: Reconsidering the walkthrough method for analyzing apps. Social Media + Society, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231158822

12.

European Commission. (2021). Monitoring the open access policy of Horizon 2020: Final report. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/268348

13.

European Union (2022). Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act).

14.

Fähnrich

(2021). Conceptualizing science communication in flux—a framework for analyzing science communication in a digital media environment. Journal of Science Communication, 20(03), Y02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20030402

15.

Fähnrich

Schäfer

M. S.

(2020). Wissenschaftskommunikation zwischen Gesellschafts-, Wissenschafts- und Medienwandel. Publizistik, 65(4), 515–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-020-00623-2

16.

Fecher

Kunz

Sokolovska

Wrzesinski

(2024). Platformisation of science. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 34(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.16693

17.

Flew

(2021). Regulating platforms. In Digital media and society series. Polity.

18.

Fraumann

Mutz

(2021). The h-index. In Ball

(Ed.), Handbook bibliometrics (pp. 169–178). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110646610-018

19.

Garvey

W. D.

Griffith

B. C.

(1967). Scientific communication as a social system. The exchange of information on research evolves predictably and can be experimentally modified. Science, 157(3792), 1011–1016. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.157.3792.1011

20.

Garvey

W. D.

Griffith

B. C.

(1972). Communication and information processing within scientific disciplines: Empirical findings for psychology. Information Storage and Retrieval, 8(3), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0271(72)90041-1

21.

Gillespie

(2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738

22.

Guenther

Wilhelm

Oschatz

Brück

(2023). Science communication on Twitter: Measuring indicators of engagement and their links to user interaction in communication scholars’ Tweet content. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 32(7), 860–869. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231166552

23.

Harzing

A.-W.

(2019). Two new kids on the block: How do crossref and dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the web of science? Scientometrics, 120(1), 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03114-y

24.

Hauck

(2019). Responsible Metrics—Verantwortlicher Umgang mit Metriken [revised version]. https://doi.org/10.15488/4906

25.

Heise

Pearce

J. M.

(2020). From open access to open science: The path from scientific reality to open scientific communication. SAGE Open, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020915900

26.

Held

(2023). Decolonizing science: Undoing the colonial and racist hegemony of Western Science. Journal of Multi Disciplinary Evaluation, 19(44), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v19i44.785

27.

Hepp

(2020). Deep mediatization. Key ideas in media and cultural studies. Routledge.

28.

Hicks

Wouters

Waltman

De Rijcke

Rafols

(2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a

29.

Huber

Barnidge

Gil de Zúñiga

Liu

(2019). Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 28(7), 759–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519869097

30.

Jordan

(2019). From social networks to publishing platforms: A review of the history and scholarship of academic social network sites. Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 6(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2019.00005

31.

Jünger

Fähnrich

(2020). Does really no one care? Analyzing the public engagement of communication scientists on Twitter. New Media & Society, 22(3), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819863413

32.

Kapidzic

(2018). Personal branding on social media: Predictors of self-presentation and relationship management of German academics (1st ed., Internet Research: Vol. 46). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845285665

33.

Kaufmann

Kasztler

(2009). Differences in publication and dissemination practices between disciplinary and transdisciplinary science and the consequences for research evaluation. Science and Public Policy, 36(3), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X427121

34.

Kircz

J. G.

Roosendaal

H. E.

(Eds.). (1996). Understanding and shaping scientific information transfer. Electronic Publishing in Science: Proceedings of the Joint ISCU Press/UNESCO Expert Conference.

35.

Kjellberg

Haider

(2019). Researchers’ online visibility: Tensions of visibility, trust and reputation. Online Information Review, 43(3), 426–439. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-07-2017-0211

36.

Komljenovic

(2019). Big data and new social relations in higher education: Academia.edu, Google Scholar and ResearchGate. In Gorur

Sellar

Steiner-Khamsi

(Eds), World yearbook of education 2019: Comparative methodology in an era of big data and global networks (pp. 148–164). Routledge.

37.

Krüger

A. K.

(2022). Soziologie des Wertens und Bewertens (utb Soziologie, Vol. 5722). Transcript Verlag. https://portal.dnb.de/opac/mvb/cover?isbn=978-3-8252-5722-4

38.

Kühl

(2013). Organizations: A systems approach. Gower.

39.

Light

Burgess

Duguay

(2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20(3), 881–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816675438

40.

Luhmann

(2018). Organization and decision. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108560672

41.

Lüthje

(2017). Interne informelle Wissenschaftskommunikation. In Bonfadelli

Fähnrich

Lüthje

Milde

Rhomberg

Schäfer

M. S.

(Eds.), Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation (pp. 109–124). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12898-2_6

42.

(2023). The platformisation of scholarly information and how to fight it. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries, 33(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.13561

43.

Manca

(2018). Researchgate and academia.edu as networked socio-technical systems for scholarly communication: A literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 26, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2008

44.

Mayring

(2019). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch (13. Aufl., Vol. 55628, pp. 468–475). Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.

45.

Merton

R. K.

(1968). The Matthew Effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56

46.

Metag

(2021). Tension between visibility and invisibility: Science communication in new information environments. Studies in Communication Sciences, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.24434/J.SCOMS.2021.01.009

47.

Nachtwey

Staab

(2020). Das Produktionsmodell des digitalen Kapitalismus. In Maasen

Passoth

J.-H.

(Eds.), Soziologie des Digitalen - Digitale Soziologie? (pp. 285–304). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845295008-285

48.

Neuberger

Weingart

Fähnrich

Fecher

Schäfer

M. S.

Schmid-Petri

Wagner

G. G.

(2021). Der digitale Wandel der Wissenschaftskommunikation. Wissenschaftspolitik im Dialog : Eine Schriftenreihe der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Vol. 16 . Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

49.

Nicholas

Herman

Boukacem-Zeghmouri

Abdullah

Watkinson

Świgoń

Rodríguez-Bravo

(2018). Early career researchers’ quest for reputation in the digital age. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 49(4), 375–396. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.49.4.01

50.

Nieborg

D. B.

Poell

(2018). The platformization of cultural production: Theorizing the contingent cultural commodity. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4275–4292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818769694

51.

Paruschke

Philipps

(2022). Hidden in the light: Scientists’ online presence on institutional websites and professional networking sites. Journal of Information Science, 51(2), 324–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221137878

52.

Plantin

J. C.

Lagoze

Edwards

P. N.

Sandvig

(2018). Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society, 20(1), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816661553

53.

Poell

Nieborg

van Dijck

(2019). Platformisation. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1425

54.

Saunders

Sim

Kingstone

Baker

Waterfield

Bartlam

Burroughs

Jinks

(2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8

55.

Schäfer

M. S.

(Ed.). (2015). Wissenschaftskommunikation im Wandel: 1. Jahrestagung der Ad-hoc-Gruppe “Wissenschaftskommunikation” der DGPuK, die im Januar 2014 an der Universität Zürich stattgefunden hat. von Halem.

56.

Schäfer

M. S.

(2017). Wissenschaftskommunikation online. In Bonfadelli

Fähnrich

Lüthje

Milde

Rhomberg

Schäfer

M. S.

(Eds.), Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation (pp. 275–293). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12898-2_15

57.

Scholz

R. T.

(2023). Own this! How platform cooperatives help workers build a democratic Internet. Verso.

58.

Srnicek

(2017). Platform capitalism. Polity.

59.

Star

S. L.

(1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955326

60.

Taubert N, & Weingart, P. (2017). Changes in scientific publishing: A heuristic for analysis. In P. Weingart & N. Weingart (Eds.), The future of scholarly publishing: Open access and the economics of digitisation (pp. 1–33). African Minds.

61.

Thiele

Lüthje

(2022). Post or perish?—Scholarly communication practices on social media in times of deep mediatization. Mediatization Studies, 5, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.17951/ms.2021.5.59-76

62.

van Dijck

(2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance and Society, 12(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v12i2.4776

63.

van Dijck

Poell

de Waal

(2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.

64.

Waller

Gugganig

(2021). Re-visioning public engagement with emerging technology: A digital methods experiment on ‘vertical farming’. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 30(5), 588–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662521990977

65.

Wilsdon

Allen

Belfiore

Campbell

Curry

Hill

Jones

Kain

Kerridge

Thelwall

Tinkler

Viney

Wouters

Hill

Johnson

(2015). The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. HEFCE, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363

Platformization of Scholarly Communication: Academic Social Networking Sites as New Infrastructures and Organizations

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

How does platform-based scholarly communication relate to the predigital scholarly communication system?

Conceptual framework: Infrastructures and organizations

The predigital scholarly communication system

Digital platforms

Methods and data

Results

Infrastructures of ASNS and subfunctions of formal scholarly communication

Registration

Certification

Dissemination

Archiving

Organizations for scholarly communication

Discussion: Platformized scholarly communication

Updated subfunctions for scholarly communication

Collaboration

Evaluation

Self-promotion

Incorporation

New organizational formats for scholarly communication

Network effects

Data commodification

Control

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Ethical statement

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author biography

References