Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analyzing the follower–followee ratio to determine user characteristics and institutional participation differences among research universities on ResearchGate

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims to examine how the follower–followee ratio determines user characteristics on the academic social networking site ResearchGate (RG) and to examine institutional participation differences among research universities. It uses the follower–followee ratio as the categorization measure for grouping 87,083 RG users from 61 U.S. universities, in three research activity levels as determined by The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (2016). As a result of analysis, individuals in the sample were further differentiated into three categories or user groups based on the follower–followee ratio: Information Source users (37.98%), Friend users (54.21%), and Information Seeker users (7.81%). These three user categories differ in overall scholarly reputation, popularity, and academic influence with a decrease from Information Source users to Information Seeker users. This study also reveals the current status of institutional participation in terms of activity level, and differences in user composition at three research activity levels. While the proportion of the Information Seeker users remains roughly the same across research activity levels, as the scholarly reputation of a university increases, there is an increase in the proportion of Friend users. The results help promote a deeper understanding of the follower–followee relationship among users on an academic social networking site, as well as the institutional user participation status. Future research should consider an international comparison between nations and disciplines. Application of this approach to other academic social networking sites would enhance general understanding of academic social networking sites and their users.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdulhayoglu, M. A., & Thijs, B. (2017). Use of ResearchGate and Google CSE for author name disambiguation. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1965–1985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adali, S., & Golbeck, J. (2014). Predicting personality with social behavior: A comparative study. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 4(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Daihani, S. M., & AlAwadhi, S. A. (2015). Exploring academic libraries’ use of Twitter: A content analysis. The Electronic Library, 33(6), 1002–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armentano, M. G., Godoy, D., & Amandi, A. A. (2013). Followee recommendation based on text analysis of micro-blogging activity. Information Systems, 38(8), 1116–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arshad, A., & Ameen, K. (2017). Scholarly communication in the age of Google: Exploring academics’ use patterns of e-journals at the University of the Punjab. The Electronic Library, 35(1), 167–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai, S., Zhu, T., & Cheng, L. (2012). Big-five personality prediction based on user behaviors at social network sites. arXiv preprint arXiv:1204.4809.

  • Benevenuto, F., Magno, G., Rodrigues, T., & Almeida, V. (2010). Detecting spammers on twitter. In Collaboration, electronic messaging, anti-abuse and spam conference (CEAS) (Vol. 6, p. 12).

  • Bhardwaj, R. K. (2017). Academic social networking sites: Comparative analysis of ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Mendeley and Zotero. Information and Learning Science, 118(5/6), 298–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchini, L. (2012). Social networks for scientists: What social media to use for your research activity. Retrieved from https://www.mysciencework.com/omniscience/social-networks-for-scientists.

  • Borrego, Á. (2017). Institutional repositories versus ResearchGate: The depositing habits of Spanish researchers. Learned Publishing, 30, 185–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campos-Freire, F., & Rúas-Araújo, J. (2016). The use of professional and scientific social networks: The case of three Galician universities. El Profesional de la Informacion, 25(3), 431–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty, N. (2012). Activities and reasons for using social networking sites by research scholars in NEHU: A study on Facebook and ResearchGate. In Planner-2012 (pp. 19–27).

  • Citrome, L. (2015). My two favourite professional social networking sites: LinkedIn and ResearchGate—How they can help you, or hurt you. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 69(6), 623–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corvello, V., Genovese, A., & Verteramo, S. (2014). Knowledge sharing among users of scientific social networking platforms. In G. Phillips-Wren, S. Carlsson, A. Respício, & P. Brézillon (Eds.), DSS 2.0—Supporting decision making with new technologies (pp. 369–380). Retrieved from http://ebooks.iospress.nl/volumearticle/36223.

  • Ebrahim, N. A. (2017). ResearchGate and Academia: Networks for researchers to improve research impact. Retrieved from https://works.bepress.com/aleebrahim/185/download/.

  • Elsayed, A. M. (2016). The use of academic social networks among Arab researchers: A survey. Social Science Computer Review, 34(3), 378–391.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gayo-Avello, D., & Brenes, D. J. (2010). Overcoming spammers in Twitter—A tale of five algorithms. In Actas del I Congreso Español de Recuperación de Información (CERI 2010) (pp. 41–52). Madrid, España, 15 y 16 de junio de 2010.

  • Gruzd, A., & Goertzen, M. (2013). Wired academia: Why social science scholars are using social media. In 2013 46th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS) (pp. 3332–3341). IEEE.

  • Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A. (2012). Connected scholars: Examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2340–2350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henning, V., & Reichelt, J. (2008). Mendeley—A Last. fm for research? In IEEE fourth international conference on eScience, 2008. eScience’08 (pp. 327–328). IEEE.

  • Hoffmann, C. P., Lutz, C., & Meckel, M. (2016). A relational altmetric? Network centrality on ResearchGate as an indicator of scientific impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 765–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, C. P., Yan, W. W., & Hu, Y. (2015). User satisfaction evaluation of microblogging services in China: Using the tetra-class model. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34(1), 17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huberman, B., Romero, D. M., & Wu, F. (2009). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v14i1.2317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D., Pettifer, S. R., & Kell, D. B. (2008). Defrosting the digital library: Bibliographic tools for the next generation web. PLoS Computational Biology, 4(10), e1000204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, H. R. (2017). Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles. Scientometrics, 112, 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2009). Why we twitter: An analysis of a microblogging community. Advances in web mining and web usage analysis (pp. 118–138). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 365–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraker, P., & Lex, E. (2015). A critical look at the ResearchGate score as a measure of scientific reputation. In Proceedings of the quantifying and analysing scholarly communication on the web workshop (ASCW’15), Web Science conference.

  • Kramer, B., & Bosman, J. (2016). Innovations in scholarly communication-global survey on research tool usage. F1000Research, 5, 692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnamurthy, B., Gill, P., & Arlitt, M. (2008). A few chirps about twitter. In Proceedings of the first workshop on online social networks (pp. 19–24). ACM.

  • Laakso, M., Lindman, J., Shen, C., Nyman, L., & Björk, B. C. (2017). Research output availability on academic social networks: implications for stakeholders in academic publishing. Electronic Markets, 27(2), 125–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leavitt, A., Burchard, E., Fisher, D., & Gilbert, S. (2009). The influentials: New approaches for analyzing influence on twitter. Web Ecology Project, 4(2), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z. (2003). Trends in transforming scholarly communication and their implications. Information Processing and Management, 39(6), 889–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovett, J., Rathemacher, A., Boukari, D., & Lang, C. (2017). Institutional repositories and academic social networks: Competition or complement? A study of open access policy compliance vs. ResearchGate participation. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 5, eP2183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Harzing, A. W., & López-Cózar, E. D. (2017). Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents? Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 152–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mas-Bleda, A., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., & Aguillo, I. (2013). European highly cited scientists’ presence in the social web. In 14th International society of scientometrics and informetrics conference (ISSI 2013) (pp. 98–109).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, A. (2010). The social parameters of scholarship. ESC: English Studies in Canada, 36(4), 18–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muscanell, N., & Utz, S. (2017). Social networking for scientists: An analysis on how and why academics use ResearchGate. Online Information Review, 41(5), 744–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas, D., Clark, D., & Herman, E. (2016). ResearchGate: Reputation uncovered. Learned Publishing, 29(3), 173–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas, D., Herman, E., Jamali, H. R., Bravo, B. R., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Dobrowolski, T., et al. (2015). New ways of building, showcasing, and measuring scholarly reputation. Learned Publishing, 28(3), 169–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onyancha, O. B. (2015). Social media and research: An assessment of the coverage of South African universities in ResearchGate, Web of Science and the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 81(1), 8–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orduna-Malea, E., Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2017). Do ResearchGate Scores create ghost academic reputations? Scientometrics, 112(1), 443–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to using SPSS for windows (version 12). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirshahid, S. E., Naghshineh, N., & Fahimnia, F. (2016). Knowledge and use of Web 2.0 by librarians in university libraries of East Azerbaijan, Iran. The Electronic Library, 34(6), 1013–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.

  • ResearchGate. (2017). About ResearchGate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/about.

  • Shrivastava, R., & Mahajan, P. (2017). An altmetric analysis of ResearchGate profiles of physics researchers: A study of University of Delhi (India). Performance Measurement and Metrics, 18(1), 52–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • StatisticsSolutions. (2017). Kruskal–Wallis test. Retrieved from http://www.statisticssolutions.com/kruskal-wallis-test/.

  • The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2016). About Carnegie classification. Retrieved (September 22, 2016) from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015a). Web indicators for research evaluation. Part 2: Social media metrics. El Profesional de la Información, 24(5), 607–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2015b). ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5), 876–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Kousha, K. (2017). ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size, and impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(2), 468–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tommasel, A., Corbellini, A., Godoy, D., & Schiaffino, S. (2015). Exploring the role of personality traits in followee recommendation. Online Information Review, 39(6), 812–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. News. (2016). National Universities Rankings. Retrieved from http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities.

  • Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veletsianos, G. (2013). Open practices and identity: Evidence from researchers and educators’ social media participation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 639–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerman, D., Spence, P. R., & Van Der Heide, B. (2012). A social network as information: The effect of system generated reports of connectedness on credibility on Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 199–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A. E., & Woodacre, M. A. (2016). The possibilities and perils of academic social networking sites. Online Information Review, 40(2), 282–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, M. X. (2010). Twitter under microscope. Retrieved from http://socialbeta.com/t/twitter-under-microscope.html.

  • Xia, F., Su, X., Wang, W., Zhang, C., Ning, Z., & Lee, I. (2016). Bibliographic analysis of nature based on Twitter and Facebook altmetrics data. PLoS ONE, 11(12), e0165997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yardi, S., Romero, D., & Schoenebeck, G. (2010). Detecting spam in a twitter network. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v15i1.2793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, M. C., Wu, Y. C. J., Alhalabi, W., Kao, H. Y., & Wu, W. H. (2016). ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers? Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1001–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Chinese National Funds of Social Science (No. 15CTQ025) and the School of Information Management, Wuhan University through the funding “World-Class Discipline of the Chinese Ministry of Education – Library and Information Science, and Data Science.”

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China

    Weiwei Yan

  2. School of Information, Kent State University, Kent, OH, 44242, USA

    Yin Zhang & Wendy Bromfield

Authors
  1. Weiwei Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wendy Bromfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yin Zhang.

Appendix

Appendix

Category

ID

Universities

Rank

Total no.

Information source no.

Friend no.

Information seeker no.

R1

R101

Princeton University

1

1135

487

578

70

R102

Harvard University

2

3254

1344

1705

205

R103

University of Chicago

3

1917

670

1102

145

R104

Yale University

3

3222

1079

1888

255

R105

Columbia University

5

3495

1355

1807

333

R106

Stanford University

5

4891

1877

2688

326

R107

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

7

3433

1451

1736

246

R108

Duke University

8

2375

817

1356

202

R109

University of Pennsylvania

8

3835

1276

2236

323

R110

Johns Hopkins University

10

2362

875

1265

222

R111

California Institute of Technology

12

1311

485

724

102

R112

Northwestern University

12

3023

1005

1777

241

R113

Brown University

14

1228

477

643

108

R114

Cornell University

15

2276

994

1103

179

R115

Rice University

15

854

336

458

60

R116

University of Notre Dame

15

825

326

450

49

R117

Vanderbilt University

15

2869

898

1763

208

R118

Washington University in St. Louis

19

2890

907

1722

261

R119

Emory University

20

2432

751

1467

214

R120

Georgetown University

20

876

359

442

75

R121

University of California, Berkeley

20

3428

1470

1711

247

R2

R201

Dartmouth College

11

763

296

416

51

R202

Wake Forest University

27

291

124

145

22

R203

College of William and Mary

32

255

118

120

17

R204

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

39

593

268

291

34

R205

Lehigh University

44

419

173

217

29

R206

Southern Methodist University

56

329

148

155

26

R207

Worcester Polytechnic Institute

60

315

142

143

30

R208

Yeshiva University

66

160

65

80

15

R209

Brigham Young University-Provo

68

923

402

448

73

R210

Baylor University

71

377

156

199

22

R211

Stevens Institute of Technology

71

309

128

150

31

R212

American University Washington DC

74

295

129

149

17

R213

Miami University

79

523

205

274

44

R214

Colorado School of Mines

82

398

170

189

39

R215

Texas Christian University

82

240

102

118

20

R216

Binghamton University-SUNY

86

454

178

250

26

R217

Marquette University

86

386

166

195

25

R218

University of Denver

86

367

161

179

27

R219

University of Tulsa

86

184

81

92

11

R220

University of Vermont

92

881

318

469

94

R3

R301

Pepperdine University

50

92

49

31

12

R302

Texas Wesleyan University

50

11

8

3

0

R303

Fairleigh Dickinson University

67

94

33

56

5

R304

Clark University

74

140

63

62

15

R305

University of San Diego

86

161

77

69

15

R306

SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry

99

132

58

61

13

R307

Rochester Institute of Technology

107

437

202

205

30

R308

University of San Francisco

107

194

90

95

9

R309

Drew University

108

44

24

19

1

R310

University of the Pacific (California, USA)

111

158

67

81

10

R311

Seton Hall University

118

184

85

90

9

R312

University of St. Thomas

118

138

53

69

16

R313

DePaul University

124

310

131

149

30

R314

Clarkson University

129

229

85

130

14

R315

Hofstra University

133

176

80

88

8

R316

Mercer University

135

156

67

82

7

R317

Adelphi University

146

147

56

76

15

R318

St. John Fisher College

146

56

23

28

5

R319

Immaculata University

152

10

3

4

3

R320

University of La Verne

152

42

19

20

3

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yan, W., Zhang, Y. & Bromfield, W. Analyzing the follower–followee ratio to determine user characteristics and institutional participation differences among research universities on ResearchGate. Scientometrics 115, 299–316 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2637-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2637-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation