Academic Social Networks: How the web is changing our way to make and communicate researches

Open access


Networking is not only essential for success in academia, but it should also be seen as a natural component of the scholarly profession. Research is typically not a purely individualistic enterprise. Academic social network sites give researchers the ability to publicise their research outputs and connect with each other. This work aims to investigate the use done by Italian scholars of 11/D2 scientific field. The picture presented shows a realistic insight into the Italian situation, although since the phenomenon is in rapid evolution results are not stable and generalizable.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Ary D. Jacobs L. C. & Sorensen Chris. (2009). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Belmont CA: Wadsworth.

  • Baynes G. (2012). Key Issue - Scientometrics bibliometrics altmetrics: some introductory advice for the lost and bemused. Insights: The UKSG Journal 25(3) 311-315.

  • Beall J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature 489(7415) 179-179.

  • Beech M. (2014). Key Issue How to share and discuss your research successfully online. Insights: The UKSG Journal 27(1) 92-95.

  • Bik H. M. & Goldstein M. C. (2013). An Introduction to Social Media for Scientists. PLoS Biology 11(4). doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535

  • Bornmann L. & Mutz R. (2014). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Eprint arxiv:1402.4578. Retrieved from arXiv

  • Brenner J. & Smith A. (2013). 72 % of Online Adults are Social Networking Site Users groups continue to increase their engagement. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project Retrieved from

  • Bullinger A. C. Hallerstede S. H. Renken U. Söldner J.-H. & Möslein K. M. (2010). Towards Research Collaboration - a Taxonomy of Social Research Network Sites. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems Lima Peru August 12-15 2010 (pp. 1-9). Lima Peru.

  • Falagas M.E. Pitsouni E.I. Malietzis G.A. & Pappas G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed Scopus Web of Science and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB Journal 22(2) pp. 338-42.

  • Galligan F. & Dyas-Correia S. (2013). Altmetrics: Rethinking the Way We Measure. Serials Review 39(1) 56-61. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2013.01.003

  • Greenhow C. & Gleason B. (2014). Social scholarship: Reconsidering scholarly practices in the age of social media. British Journal of Educational Technology 45(3) 392-402.

  • Haglund L. & Olsson P. (2008). The impact on university libraries of changes in information behavior among academic researchers: A multiple case study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 34(1) 52-59.

  • Haines L. L. Light J. O’Malley D. & Delwiche F. a. (2010). Information-seeking behavior of basic science researchers: implications for library services. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 98(1) 73-81.

  • Happell B. & Cleary M. (2013). Research career development: The importance of establishing a solid track record in nursing academia. Collegian 21(3) 233-238.

  • Hoffmann C. P. Lutz C. & Meckel M. (2014). Impact Factor 2.0: Applying Social Network Analysis to Scientific Impact Assessment. In Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1576-1586). doi:10.1109/HICSS.2014.202

  • Hugget S. (2010). Social networking in academia. Research Trends 16(March) 5-6.

  • Hugget S. (2010). Social networking in academia. Research Trends 16(March) 5-6.

  • Jordan K. (2014). Academics and their online networks: Exploring the role of academic social networking sites. First Monday 19(11) 1-19.

  • Kinal J. & Rykiel Z. (2013). Open Access as a Factor of Enhancing of the Global Information Flow. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 83 156-160.

  • Kortelainen T. & Katvala M. (2012). “ Everything is plentiful-Except attention” Attention data of scientific journals on social web tools. Journal of Informetrics 6(4) 661-668. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2012.06.004

  • Labrie N. Amati R. Camerini A.-L. Zampa M. & Zanini C. (2015). “What’s in it for us?” Six dyadic networking strategies in academia. Studies in Communication Sciences 15(1) 158-160.

  • Li N. & Gillet D. (2013). Identifying influential scholars in academic social media platforms. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining - ASONAM ’13 (pp. 608-614). Niagara Ontario CAN: ACM. doi:10.1145/2492517.2492614

  • Liu J. & Adie E. (2013). New perspectives on article-level metrics: developing ways to assess research uptake and impact online. Insights the UKSG Journal 26(July) 153-158. doi:10.1629/2048-7754.79

  • Lupton D. (2014). ‘Feeling Better Connected’: Academics’ Use of Social Media. Canberra: News & Media Research Centre University of Canberra.

  • Mabe M. A. (2010). Scholarly Communication: A Long View. New Review of Academic Librarianship 16(sup1) 132-144. doi:10.1080/13614533.2010.512242

  • Manca S. & Ranieri M. (2014). I Social Media vanno all’università? Un’indagine sulle pratiche didattiche degli accademici italiani. ECPS - Educational Cultural and Psychological Studies (10) 305-339. doi:10.7358/ecps-2014-010-manc

  • Marino W. (2012). Fore-cite: tactics for evaluating citation management tools. Reference Services Review 40(2) 295-310.

  • Menendez M. De Angeli A. & Menestrina Z. (2012). Exploring the virtual space of academia. In From Research to Practice in the Design of Cooperative Systems: Results and Open Challenges. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems COOP 2012 (pp. 49-63). Marseille France. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-4093-1_4

  • Moed H.F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. New York: Springer Mohammadi E. & Thelwall M. (2014). Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65(8) 1627-1638. doi:10.1002/asi.23071

  • Niu X. Hemminger B. M. Lown C. Adams S. Brown C. Level A. … Cataldo T. (2010). National study of information seeking behavior of academic researchers in the United States. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(5) 869-890.

  • Ortega J. L. (2015). Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites : The case of CSIC’s members. Journal of Informetrics 9(1) 39-49.

  • Ovadia S. (2014). ResearchGate and : Academic Social Networks. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian 33(3) 165-16941.

  • Powell D. a. Jacob C. J. & Chapman B. J. (2012). Using Blogs and New Media in Academic Practice: Potential Roles in Research Teaching Learning and Extension. Innovative Higher Education 37(4) 271-282. doi:10.1007/s10755-011-9207-7

  • Ranieri M. Manca S. & Fini A. (2012). Why (and how) do teachers engage in social networks? An exploratory study of professional use of Facebook and its implications for lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 43(5) 754-769. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01356.x Salem J. & Fehrmann P. (2013). Bibliographic Management Software : A Focus Group Study of the Preferences and Practices of Undergraduate Students Bibliographic Management Software : A Focus Group Study of the Preferences and Practices of Undergraduate Students. Public Services Quarterly 9(October) 110-120.

  • Steinfield C. Ellison N. B. & Lampe C. (2008). Social capital self-esteem and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 29(6) 434-445. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.002

  • Tapscott D. Williams A. D. (2007). Wikinomics 2.0: La collaborazione di massa che sta cambiando il mondo Milano: Etas Libri.

  • Thelwall M. & Kousha K. (2014). Social network or academic network. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65(4) 721-731. doi:10.1002/asi.23038

  • Thelwall M. & Kousha K. (2015). ResearchGate: Disseminating communicating and measuring Scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 66(4) 876-889. doi:10.1002/asi.23236

  • Van Eperen L. & Marincola F. M. (2011). How scientists use social media to communicate their research. Journal of Translational Medicine 9(1) 199. doi:10.1186/1479-5876-9-199

  • Walters W.H. (2011). Comparative Recall and Precision of Simple and Expert Searches in Google Scholar and Eight Other Databases. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 11(4) pp. 971-1006.

  • Weller M. (2011). The Digital Scholar. How technology is transforming scholarly practice. London: Bloomsbury.

  • Yang S. Qiu J. & Xiong Z. (2010). An empirical study on the utilization of web academic resources in humanities and social sciences based on web citations. Scientometrics 84(1) 1-19.

  • Zhang Y. (2012). Comparison of Select Reference Management Tools. Medical Reference Services Quarterly 31(1) 45-60.

Journal information
Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 648 184 7
PDF Downloads 297 140 13