Electronic Markets

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 125–133 | Cite as

Research output availability on academic social networks: implications for stakeholders in academic publishing

  • Mikael LaaksoEmail author
  • Juho Lindman
  • Cenyu Shen
  • Linus Nyman
  • Bo-Christer Björk
Research Paper


A recent disruption in academic publishing are Academic Social Networks (ASN), i.e. web platforms such as ResearchGate and that have provided new ways for researchers to disseminate, search for, and retrieve research articles. ASNs are still a grey area in terms of implications for involved stakeholders, and research on them has so far been scarce. In an effort to map out factors related to ASN use this article provides a multi-method case study of one business school (Hanken School of Economics, Finland) that incorporates 1) a bibliometric analysis on the full-text availability of research output on ASNs for research published 2012–2014 by Hanken affiliated authors, 2) semi-structured interviews with faculty active in publishing in order to gain insight into motivations for use and use patterns, and 3) a survey distributed to all research-active faculty and doctoral students in order to gain a wider perspective on ASN use. ASNs have for many become the primary way to provide access to one’s research output, outpacing all other types of online locations such as personal websites and repositories. Based on the case study findings, earlier research, and recent industry developments, the article concludes with a discussion about the implications that the current trajectory of ASN use has on major stakeholders in academic publishing.


Academic social networks ResearchGate Open access 

JEL Classification

I2 Education and Research Institutions Research and Development Technological Change Intellectual Property Rights L5 Regulation and Industrial Policy 



This research was conducted as part of a project funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture in Finland (OKM/40/524/2015 DOCID:252381).


  1. Abrizah, A., Hilmi, M., & Kassim, N. A. (2015). Resource-sharing through an inter-institutional repository. The Electronic Library, 33(4), 730–748. doi: 10.1108/EL-02-2014-0040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. (2016) About Retrieved 4th February 2016.
  3. Archambault, E., Amyot, D., Deschamps, P., Nicol, A., Provencher, F., Rebout, L., & Roberge, G. (2014). Proportion of Open Access Papers Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals at the European and World Levels: 1996–2013 (41p.). Produced for the European Commission DG Research & Innovation.
  4. Björk, B.-C., Laakso, M., Welling, P., & Paetau, P. (2014). Anatomy of green open access. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 237–250. doi: 10.1002/asi.22963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. (2012) Interview with Richard Price, CEO. Interview by Hadas Shema. Published October 31 2012.
  6. Bohannon, B. (2016). Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone. Science, 352(6285), 508–512. doi: 10.1126/science.352.6285.508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bullinger, A., Renken, U., & Möslein, K. (2011). Understanding online collaboration technology adoption by researchers-a model and empirical study. ICIS 2011 Proceedings. Paper 2.
  8. Elsevier (2016) Elsevier Acquires the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). Press Release 17th of May 2016.
  9. (2016) Share Links. Accessed 7th of June 2016.
  10. (2015) Why Are We Not Boycotting Seminar organized on the 8th of December 2015 by The Centre for Disruptive Media, Coventry University, UK.
  11. (2014) Hanken in Figures. Accessed 26 Feb 2016.
  12. (2016) How Can I Share It? STM Association. Accessed 7th June 2016.
  13. Jamali, H., & Nabavi, M. (2016). Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google scholar in different subject fields. Scientometrics, 105, 1635–1165. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1642-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim, J. (2010). Faculty self-archiving: motivations and barriers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1909–1922. doi: 10.1002/asi.21336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laakso, M. (2014). Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self- archiving is allowed. Scientometrics, 99(2), 475–494. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1205-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martín-Martín, A., Orduña-Malea, E., Ayllón, J.M. & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2014). Does Google Scholar contain all highly cited documents (1950–2013)?‖. EC3 Working Papers, 19.
  17. Matthewsa, D. (2016) Elsevier denies it will force SSRN users on to other services. Times Higher Education. May 19th 2016.
  18. Matthewsb, D. (2016) Do academic social networks share academics’interests? Times Higher Education. April 7th 2016.
  19. 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. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Niyazov, Y., Vogel, C., Price, R., Lund, B., Judd, D., et al. (2016). Open access meets discoverability: citations to articles posted to academia.Edu. PloS One, 11(2), e0148257. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Orduna-Malea, E., Martin-Martin, A., Ayllón, J. M., & López-Cózar, D. (2014). The silent fading of an academic search engine: the case of Microsoft academic search. Online Information Review, 38(7), 936–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ortega, J. L. (2015). Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Information Review, 39(4), 520–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ponte, D., & Simon, J. (2011). Scholarly communication 2.0: exploring researchers’ opinions on web 2.0 for scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and dissemination. Serials Review, 37(3), 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ResearchGate (2016). ResearchGate Fact Sheet. Retrieved 4th February 2016.
  25. Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2006). The changing scholarly communication landscape: an international survey of senior researchers. Learned Publishing, 19, 31–55. doi: 10.1087/095315106775122493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sawant, S. (2012). Management of Indian institutional repositories. OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives, 28(3), 130–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spezi, V., Fry, J., Creaser, C., Probets, S., & White, S. (2013). Researchers’ green open access practice: a cross- disciplinary analysis. Journal of Documentation, 69(3), 334–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. STM (2015). Voluntary principles for article sharing on scholarly collaboration networks. Accessed 7th June 2016.
  29. Swan, A. (2010) Modelling Scholarly Communication Options: Costs and benefits for universities.
  30. Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Christian, L., & Volentine, R. (2015). Scholarly article seeking, reading, and use: a continuing evolution from print to electronic in the sciences and social sciences. Learned Publishing, 28(2), 93–105. doi: 10.1087/20150203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2014). Academia.Edu: social network or academic network? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 721–731. doi: 10.1002/asi.23038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015). ResearchGate: disseminating, communicating, and measuring scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 876–889. doi: 10.1002/asi.23236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Westrienen, G., and Lynch, CA. (2005) Academic Institutional Repositories: Deployment Status in 13 Nations as of Mid-2005. D-Lib Magazine 11(9). Available from http://www.dlib. org/dlib/september05/westrienen/09westrienen.html.
  34. Vincent-Lamarre, P., Boivin, J., Gargouri, Y., Larivière, V., & Harnad, S. (2015). Estimating open access mandate effectiveness: the MELIBEA score. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi: 10.1002/asi.23601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ware, M., and Mabe, M. (2015) The STM report - An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Accessed 29th of February 2016.

Copyright information

© Institute of Applied Informatics at University of Leipzig 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management and OrganisationHanken School of EconomicsHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations