Presencia, actividad, visibilidad e interdisciplinariedad del profesorado universitario de Documentación en los medios socialesuna perspectiva de género

  1. Montesi, Michela 1
  2. Villaseñor Rodríguez, Isabel 1
  3. Bittencourt dos Santos, Fernando 2
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid, España
  2. 2 Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Brasil
Journal:
Revista española de documentación científica

ISSN: 0210-0614,  1988-4621

Year of publication: 2019

Volume: 42

Issue: 4

Type: Article

DOI: 10.3989/REDC.2019.4.1640 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista española de documentación científica

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

The paper analyzes the presence, activity, visibility and interdisciplinarity of 349 Library and Information Science (LIS) faculty on social media, in order to find possible gender differences. Data were obtained between April and June 2018 from ResearchGate (RG), Google Scholar Citations (GSC), and Twitter, and the population studied corresponded to LIS faculty affiliated to 13 Spanish universities. Different variables were analyzed for the four dimensions, including, among others, the number of documents uploaded to RG and the number of tweets, replies and retweets on Twitter for the activity, along with the percentage of open access documents and of documents differing from traditional genders on RG and the number of followers and followees on Twitter for visibility. Results point out differences between the two groups, especially in terms of visibility.

Bibliographic References

  • Abramo, G.; D’Angelo, C. A.; Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 811-822.
  • Álvarez Bornstein, B.; Montesi, M. (2016). La comunicación entre investigadores en Twitter. Una etnografía virtual en el ámbito de las ciencias de la documentación. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 39(4), 8.
  • Araújo, E. B.; Araújo, N. A.; Moreira, A. A.; Herrmann, H. J.; Andrade Jr, J. S. (2017). Gender differences in scientific collaborations: Women are more egalitarian than men. PloS one, 12(5), e0176791.
  • Barbour, K.; Marshall, D. (2012). The academic online: Constructing persona through the World Wide Web. First Monday, 17(9).
  • Beaudry, C.; Larivière, V. (2016). Which gender gap? Factors affecting researchers’ scientific impact in science and medicine. Research Policy, 45(9), 1790-1817.
  • Bik, H. M.; Goldstein, M. C. (2013). An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS biology, 11(4), e1001535.
  • Brown Jarreau, P.; Porter, L. (2017). Science in the social media age: profiles of science blog readers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(1), 142-168.
  • Collins, K.; Shiffman, D.; Rock, J. (2016). How are scientists using social media in the workplace?. PloS one, 11(10), e0162680.
  • Copiello, S.; Bonifaci, P. (2018). A few remarks on ResearchGate score and academic reputation. Scientometrics, 114(1), 301-306.
  • Costas, R.; van Honk, J.; Franssen, T. (2017). Scholars on Twitter: who and how many are they? 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, October 16-20, Wuhan, China. Disponible en: https:// arxiv.org/abs/1712.05667 [última consulta: 22-12- 2018].
  • Donelan, H. (2016). Social media for professional development and networking opportunities in academia. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(5), 706-729.
  • Galyani Moghaddam, G. (2010). Information technology and gender gap: toward a global view. The Electronic Library, 28(5), 722-733.
  • García Nieto, M. T. (2013). ¿Son invisibles las mujeres científicas? Estudios sobre el mensaje periodístico, 19, 783-792.
  • Ghiasi, G.; Harsh, M.; Schiffauerova, A. (2018). Inequality and collaboration patterns in Canadian nanotechnology: implications for pro-poor and gender-inclusive policy. Scientometrics, 115(2), 785-815.
  • Greifeneder, E.; Pontis, S.; Blandford, A.; Attalla, H.; Neal, D.; Schlebbe, K. (2018). Researchers’ attitudes towards the use of social networking sites. Journal of Documentation, 74(1), 119-136.
  • Helmer, M.; Schottdorf, M.; Neef, A.; Battaglia, D. (2017). Gender bias in scholarly peer review. Elife, 6, e21718.
  • Holmberg, K.; Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1027-1042.
  • Jhonnel Alarco, J.; Álvarez-Andrade, E. V.; Arroyo-Hernández, H. (2016). Diferencia de género en investigadores peruanos según Google Académico, Gaceta Sanitaria, 30(2), 160.
  • Ke, Q.; Ahn, Y. Y.; Sugimoto, C. R. (2017). A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter. PloS one, 12(4), e0175368.
  • Kim, Y. M. (2010). Gender role and the use of university library website resources: A social cognitive theory perspective. Journal of Information Science, 36(5), 603- 617.
  • Kjellberg, S.; Haider, J.; Sundin, O. (2016). Researchers’ use of social network sites: A scoping review. Library & Information Science Research, 38(3), 224-234.
  • Knobloch-Westerwick, S.; Glynn, C. J. (2013). The Matilda effect—Role congruity effects on scholarly communication: A citation analysis of Communication Research and Journal of Communication articles. Communication Research, 40(1), 3-26.
  • Larivière, V.; Ni, C.; Gingras, Y.; Cronin, B.; Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature News, 504(7479), 211.
  • Larivière, V.; Vignola-Gagné, E.; Villeneuve, C.; Gélinas, P.; Gingras, Y. (2011). Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: an analysis of Québec university professors. Scientometrics, 87(3), 483-498.
  • Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender & Society, 20(6), 754-780.
  • Maliniak, D.; Powers, R.; Walter, B. F. (2013). The gender citation gap in international relations. International Organization, 67(4), 889-922.
  • Martínez Lirola, M. (2010). Notas sobre la visibilidad y la invisibilidad de las mujeres en nuestra sociedad: el caso concreto de la Universidad de Alicante. Revista Nuevas Tendencias en Antropología, 2, pp. 37-58.
  • Martínez Lirola, M. (2011). Explorando la invisibilidad de mujeres de diferentes culturas en la sociedad y en los medios de comunicación. Palabra Clave, 13(1), pp. 161-173.
  • Mas-Bleda, A.; Aguillo, I.F. (2015). La web social como nuevo medio de comunicación y evaluación científica. Barcelona: Editorial UOC y EPI.
  • Mas-Bleda, A.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.; Aguillo, I. F. (2014). Do highly cited researchers successfully use the social web? Scientometrics, 101(1), 337-356.
  • Mauleón, E.; Hillán, L.; Moreno, L.; Gómez, I.; Bordons, M. (2013). Assessing gender balance among journal authors and editorial board members. Scientometrics, 95(1), 87-114.
  • Meishar-Tal, H.; Pieterse, E. (2017). Why do academics use academic social networking sites? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(1),
  • Messias, J.; Vikatos, P.; Benevenuto, F. (2017). White, man, and highly followed: Gender and race inequalities in Twitter. Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Intelligence Pages, WI 17, Leipzig, Germany — August 23 - 26, 266-274.
  • Mikki, S.; Zygmuntowska, M.; Gjesdal, Ø. L.; Al Ruwehy, H. A. (2015). Digital presence of Norwegian scholars on academic network sites—where and who are they? PloS one, 10(11), e0142709.
  • Mitchell, S. M.; Lange, S., Brus, H. (2013). Gendered citation patterns in international relations journals. International Studies Perspectives, 14(4), 485-492.
  • Nentwich, M.; König, R. (2014). Academia goes Facebook? The potential of social network sites in the scholarly realm. In: Bartling S., Friesike S. (eds) Opening Science. Cham: Springer, pp. 107-124.
  • Nicholas, D.; Rodríguez-Bravo, B.; Watkinson, A.; Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C.; Herman, E.; Xu, J.; Abriza, A.; ?wigo?, M. (2017). Early career researchers and their publishing and authorship practices. Learned Publishing, 30(3), 205-217.
  • Nilizadeh, S.; Groggel, A.; Lista, P.; Das, S.; Ahn, Y. Y.; Kapadia, A.; Rojas, F. (2016). Twitter’s Glass Ceiling: The Effect of Perceived Gender on Online Visibility. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2016), Cologne, Germany, May 17–20, pp. 289-298.
  • Orduña-Malea, E.; Martín-Martín, A.; Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2016). La bibliometría que viene: ALMetrics (Author Level Metrics) y las múltiples caras del impacto de un autor. El profesional de la información, 25(3), 485-496.
  • Orduña-Malea, E.; Martín-Martín, A.; Delgado-López-Cózar, E. (2016a). ResearchGate como fuente de evaluación científica: desvelando sus aplicaciones bibliométricas. El profesional de la información (EPI), 25(2), 303-310.
  • Orduña-Malea, E.; Martín-Martín, A.; Thelwall, M.; López- Cózar, E. D. (2017). Do ResearchGate Scores create ghost academic reputations? Scientometrics, 112(1), 443-460.
  • Ortega, J. L. (2015). Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Information Review, 39(4), 520-536.
  • Ortega, J. L. (2017). Toward a homogenization of academic social sites: A longitudinal study of profiles in Academia. edu, Google Scholar Citations and ResearchGate. Online Information Review, 41(6), 812-825.
  • Paul-Hus, A.; Sugimoto, C. R.; Haustein, S.; Larivière, V. (2015). Is there a gender gap in social media metrics? In: Proceedings of ISSI 2015-15th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, June 29-July 3, 2015, Isanbul, Turkey, pp 37–45.
  • Peñas, C. S.; Willett, P. (2006). Brief communication: Gender differences in publication and citation counts in librarianship and information science research. Journal of Information Science, 32(5), 480-485.
  • Potthoff, M.; Zimmermann, F. (2017). Is there a gender-based fragmentation of communication science? An investigation of the reasons for the apparent gender homophily in citations. Scientometrics, 112(2), 1047- 1063.
  • Procter, R.; Williams, R.; Stewart, J.; Poschen, M.; Snee, H.; Voss, A.; Asgari-Targhi, M. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1926), 4039-4056.
  • Rinaldi, A. (2014). Spinning the web of open science: Social networks for scientists and data sharing, together with open access, promise to change the way research is conducted and communicated. EMBO Reports, 15(4), 342-346.
  • Sugimoto, C. R.; Work, S.; Larivière, V.; Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037- 2062.
  • Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K. (2014). Academia.edu: social network or academic network?. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 721-731.
  • Tsou, A.; Bowman, T. D.; Sugimoto, T.; Lariviere, V.; Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Self-presentation in scholarly profiles: Characteristics of images and perceptions of professionalism and attractiveness on academic social networking sites. First Monday, 21(4).
  • Van Rijnsoever, F. J.; Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463-472.
  • Ward, J.; Bejarano, W.; Dudás, A. (2015). Scholarly social media profiles and libraries: A review. Liber Quarterly, 24(4).
  • Wildgaard, L.; Schneider, J. W.; Larsen, B. (2014). A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 101(1), 125-158.
  • Woolley, R.; Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M.; Turpin, T.; Marceau, J. (2014). Research collaboration in the social sciences: What factors are associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration?. Science and Public Policy, 42(4), 567-582.
  • Zhu, Y.; Purdam, K. (2017). Social media, science communication and the academic super user in the United Kingdom. First Monday, 22(11).
Data source: Dialnet