E-visibility to enhance knowledge sharing

E-visibility to enhance knowledge sharing

1 Department of Information & Knowledge Management, University of Johannesburg, South Africa, e-mail:[email protected]

2 Department of Information & Knowledge Management, University of Johannesburg, South Africa, e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper reports on a survey, as part of an e-visibility longitudinal comparative study looking at the usage of social networking tools to enhance e-visibility between 2014-2017, conducted on the participating School of Environmental Science (SES) researchers at Unisa. The results indicate the majority used free search engines and websites to ascertain their online presence. LinkedInwas the preferred tool used to create research e-profiles for discoverability. Regarding accessibility, the majority of the respondents did not link their research output onto repositories and 38.4% opted not to archive their research publications. The results foundAcademia.eduandResearchGateto be the preferred social networking tools for determining alternative research impact using altmetrics and

Mendeley as the most preferred social networking tool for reference management. Knowledge sharing is enhanced by the increased e-visibility of SES researchers. E-visibility benefits from increased online presence, increased discoverability and accessibility of researchers via research e– profiles.

Key Words:E-visibility; knowledge sharing; online presence; research e-profiles.

INTRODUCTION

Advances in technology and the proliferation of online citation resources and the popularity of academic social networking tools allow researchers to embrace online research practices and become part of online knowledge sharing research communities (Jeng, He & Jiang 2015; Ma & Chan 2014). The online research communities are seen as an attempt to embrace and accommodate the needs of researchers with similar interests with the utilization of social networking technology for online interaction, engagement and collaboration e.g. knowledge sharing (Roth & McCully 2010; Roebuck Siha & Bell 2013). This affords the researcher the opportunity of actively creating a definite identifiable online presence and allows for active participation and research dissemination on the online research communities (Menendez, Angeli & Menestrina 2012; Arda 2012; Goodier & Czerniewicz 2012; Redden 2010; Lin & Tsai 2011; Mangan 2012). The social networking tools and platforms become innovative communication vessels facilitating knowledge sharing by providing an effective and efficient knowledge sharing environment (Amin, Hasnan, Besar & Almunawar 2016). Amin et al (2016) and Bell (2001) defines knowledge creation and sharing as “the generation, storing, representation and sharing of knowledge to the benefit of the organization and its individuals to ensure comprehensive and understandable management initiatives and procedures in the organization”.

This paper reports on a study of the e-visibility for the SES researchers at Unisa to enhance their knowledge sharing, in order to increase their e-visibility (online presence) by creating and actively maintaining researcher e-profiles on the existing citation resources and academic social networking

tools. The emphasis is on defining the concept “e-visibility” and determining the existing e-visibility status of the SES researchers.

LITERATURE REVIEW Defining e-visibility

A study by Lawrence (2001) found that the impact of a published paper increased if it was available online and suggested that researchers publishing online were more likely to have their research downloaded and other researchers citing their research, thus increasing the impact of the sharing of their knowledge. An online research presence therefore implies the increased visibility of the researcher online and the online location of their published research (output). The online research e-profiles by researchers create the ideal online environment for sharing their knowledge and distributing research output. The creation of online research profiles by implication allow the researchers to increase their online presence (Chang 2012; Alsagoff 2012; Goodier & Czerniewicz 2012; Cann, Dimitriou & Hooley 2011).

Research by Bar-Ilan, Haustein, Peters, Shema and Terliesner (2012), Ale-Ebrahim and Salehi (2013), and Norman (2012) encourage researchers to increase their visibility with the aim of becoming more discoverable and accessible, by publishing in high impacts online journals. The visibility of a researcher has become synonymous with having an online presence as a researcher. From the above, three themes on researcher visibility emerged: 1) the researcher’s online presence; 2) researcher discoverability; and 3) research accessibility.

Chung and Park (2012) define a researcher’s online presence on the Web “as the number of web (co-) mentions of each researcher” which translates to the amount of times the researcher or the research publication (output) is mentioned or the search engine hits retrieved for the author or research publication on the Web. Norman (2012) suggested that the research (knowledge) should be visible (shared) to wider audiences via online platforms in an online format. Studies on researcher online visibility indicate that a researcher and the researcher’s research publications (output) should be more discoverable (Ale-Ebrahim, Salehi, Embi, Tanha, Gholizadeh, Motahar & Ordi 2014). This translates to published research (knowledge) being easy to find (shared) and searchable via online search platforms and databases for other researchers.

Studies by Norman (2012), Repanovici (2011), and Ale-Ebrahim and Salehi (2013) point out that research accessibility translates to research output being easily accessed by other researchers. Accessibility of research improved with self-archiving research and uploading research onto online repositories (Ebrahim et al. 2013; Czerniewicz & Wiens 2013; Rotich & Musakali 2013; Ale-Ebrahim & Salehi 2013). Therefore, research that has been uploaded (archived) onto institutional repositories increase the visibility of the researchers (Repanovici 2011), as well as the visibility of the research institutions (Swan & Carr 2008). Recent studies indicate a correlation between the visibility of an article and the citation counts and seem to indicate that the online visibility of an article as research output, increases the opportunity to attract citations for the article (Lawrence 2001; Ale-Ebrahim, Salehi, Embi, Tanha, Gholizadeh, & Motahar 2014).

For the purpose of this study, e-visibility can be described as the online presence, discoverability and accessibility of a researcher and his/her research publications on the Web. Essentially, this translates to researchers increasing their online presence in order to enhance their online discoverability as researchers and their research (knowledge), and enhancing the accessibility of their research for maximum retrieval and downloading (sharing) to increase citation counts and increase their impact

as researchers. E-visibility therefore allows a researcher to be visible across various platforms on the Web i.e. general e-visibility, professional e-visibility and research e-visibility. E-visibility in a research context, as illustrated in Figure 1, creates an opportunity for researchers to share knowledge within the communities supporting common ideas for common purpose. This includes a professional online community e.g. LinkedIn (Mangan 2012:2); and academic online communities on social networking tools and websites such as Acadenia.edu, ResearchGate, Mendeley, andTwitter (Arda 2012; Chang 2012; Campos & Valencia 2015; Ovadia 2013; Bar-Ilanet al. 2012; Niesche 2013).

Figure 1: E-visibility in a research community context

Research e-profiles in e-visibility

According to Ward, Bejarano and Dudás (2015), the most acceptable methods to creating an online presence include using an electronic profile (e-profile). An online user profile can be is described as a “digital representation” of a researcher that contains various information of the user. The essential elements necessary in a research e-profile include: the electronic representation of the researcher online and pertinent information about the researcher; the researcher’s online reputation that allows for researcher affiliation to a research institution or university; and the researcher and/or research online discoverability and accessibility. A researcher’s e-profiles in terms of e-visibility essentially consist of three types of profiles: 1) traditional citation profiles; 2) non-traditional research e-profiles; and 3) consolidated e-profiles.

The traditional citation e-profiles include (Ward, Bejarano & Dudás 2015):

ResearcherIDprofile (by ISI Thomson Reuters);

Google ScholarCitation profile.

The non-traditional research profiles can be created on various websites and social networking tools. This includes institutional repositories such as the Unisa Institutional Repository (Unisa IR) (by

DSpace); subject repositories such as Figshare or ArXiv (Bar-Ilan, 2014); and academic social networking tools/websites such asResearchGate,Academia.edu,Mendeley, andTwitter(Arda 2012; Chang 2012; Campos & Valencia 2015; Ovadia 2013; Bar-Ilan et al. 2012; Niesche 2013). According to Mangan (2012), LinkedIn, although not considered a research profile but rather a professional social networking website, creates a platform for researchers to use professionally for employment purposes, also provides a valuable academic collaboration platform for researchers (Conteh-Morgan 2013).

The consolidated profile can be described as an e-profile which consolidates various research profiles into one research profile which is accessible online to a wider audience (all stakeholders) for free (Foley, Kochalko 2010; Mikki, Zygmuntowska, Gjesdal & Al Ruwehyl 2015). As example,ORCID

offer unique identifiers for individual researchers which allows for an open and transparent linking mechanism between various existing research profile platforms with author ID systems, which include scholarly publication lists such as ISI’s Researcher ID, Scopus, Google Scholar,

ResearchGate, Academia.edu, and institutional website to enhance the research profile (Haak, Fenner & Paglione 2012; Thorisson 2012).

METHODOLOGY

This paper reports on a study of the e-visibility for the environmental science researchers at the University of South Africa (Unisa) to enhance knowledge sharing. An e-visibility survey was developed to determine the perceived e-visibility status and usage of social networking tools for research purposes of the SES researchers at (Unisa). The survey forms part of a larger longitudinal study from December 2014 to April 2017.

The e-visibility measuring instrument developed for the survey included the following e-visibility themes:

Ascertaining online presence using online search engines.

Using websites and databases to create or register online profiles. Ascertaining research discoverability and accessibility.

Using reference management tools with social networking capabilities.

Using websites, search engines and databases to search for alternative citation impact. The data collected from the e-visibility survey was collected and analysed in May 2015 to determine the e-visibility status for the SES researchers and the utilization of social networking tools for research purposes (see figure 2).

Figure 2: Longitudinal E-visibility study of the SES researchers at Unisa Results and analysis of e-visibility survey

The e-visibility survey was distributed via Survey Monkey and a total of 47 researchers completed the questionnaire of the potential 62 researchers who agreed to participate in the e-visibility study. The results from the e-visibility survey yielded a response rate of 75.8%. Following is a discussion of some of the e-visibility survey results.

Biographical information

Section A of the survey comprised seven questions regarding biographical information of the SES researchers. In terms of age of the respondents the results indicated the largest percentage of the SES researchers fall within the 20-30 age group, with the youngest age of 24 and oldest age 69. This meant a mean average of 40 years for the respondents.

Question 2 revealed that the majority (93%) of SES researchers have postgraduate qualifications with 39% having Masters, 33% Doctorates, 22% Honours, 4% Diplomas and 2% Bachelors or equivalent. For question 3, related to the post level description, the results showed that 39.5% of respondents, the largest percentage, fell within the post level of Lecturer, followed by Junior Lecturer (21%), Senior Lecturer (14%), Professor (14%), Manager (7%), and Associate Professor at 4.7%.

For question 4, the respondents either had to describe themselves either as an emerging researcher (69%) or established researcher (23.8%). In addition the established researcher could indicate their NRF rating resulting in 4.8% indicated a NRF Y2 rating and 2.4% a NRF C2 rating.

The last part of this section required the respondents to indicate the number for accredited and non-accredited research publications (output). In terms of the non-accredited scholarly research publications the respondents indicated 74.5% accredited journal articles, 42.6% papers in accredited conference proceedings, 21.3% accredited books, and 44.7% chapters in accredited books. None of the respondents listed patents as part of the accredited publications (see figure 3).

Figure 3: Accredited scholarly research publications for SES researchers

For the number of non-accredited scholarly research publications the respondents indicated 53.2% accredited journal articles, 53.2% accredited conference proceedings, 23.4% non-accredited books, and 27.7% chapters in non-non-accredited books. None of the respondents listed patents as part of the non-accredited publications (see figure 4).

Figure 4: Non-accredited scholarly research publications for SES researchers

Online presence using online search engines

This section of the survey required the respondents to identify which online search engines and tools they used to ascertain their online presence. The results show that 4% did not use any tools or databases to ascertain their online presence. Whereas 63.4% indicates using the free online search engines and tools e.g. Google, Google Scholar, BingandYahoo. The usage of the fee-based tools:

Web of Science, ScopusandProQuestindicated a lower percentage of 32.6%.

Online research profiles

The researchers were asked to identify which websites and/or online databases they used to create or register e-profiles as a researcher. The results indicate 6.9% using no websites or online databases. The largest percentage (29.7%) of respondents usedLinkedInto create a professional research profile followed by the social networking research profilesAcademia.edu(24.9%),ResearchGate(19.8%),

Google Scholar (11.9%), the Unisa institutional website profile (11.9%), ORCID (4%), and

ResearcherID(1%) as traditional research profiles (see figure 5). *HNKG:E:KMB<E>L "HHDL <A:IM>KLBG;HHDL <HG?>K>G<>I:I>KL I:M>GML *HNKG:E:KMB<E>L "HHDL <A:IM>KLBG;HHDL <HG?>K>G<>I:I>KL 0:M>GML

Figure 5: Websites and/or online databases used to create or register online profiles

The most research e-profiles were reported on the academic social networking tools ResearchGate

and Academica.edu. Research by (Menendez, et al. 2012) reported similar results with a high distribution of profiles on LinkedIn, ResearchGateand Academica.edu whereas research by Mikki et al (2015), indicated the highest distribution of e-profiles to be onResearchGate. It should be noted that although LinkedIn received the highest percentage, it was not always considered a research profile by definition, rather a professional e-profile as no research output/publications could be linked directly to theLinkedInprofile (Conteh-Morgen 2013). However,LinkedInhas recently updated the functionality to allow the listing and linking of research publications (output). This indicates a preference for the creation of e-profiles on free websites (e.g.LinkedIn) and social networking tools (e.g.Academia.eduandResearchGate), rather than on the traditional citation resources and websites (e.g.Google Scholar,ORCIDandResearcherID).

Online discoverability and accessibility

In the section on discoverability and accessibility the respondents were asked to list the types of scholarly publications archived and/or uploaded onto online archives. The survey results indicated that 38.4% of the respondents opted not to upload and/or archive their scholarly research. The result has definite implication in terms of accessibility. In addition, 21.9% of the respondents uploaded journal articles, followed by 13.7% for conference papers, 12.3% for chapters in books, 5.5% slide presentations, and 2.7% for pictures/photos/figures.

The results further indicated that 63.4% did not upload their research onto the institutional repository nor on subject archives. The implication of not practicing self-archiving of research publications (output) is that the research is not accessible nor discoverable, thus invisible in terms of knowledge sharing on online platforms. The low percentages of self-archiving on institutional repositories are supported by research by Jantz and Wilson (2008) and Cullen and Chawner (2011).

Research social networking presence

The section focused on websites and social networking tools for academics, prompts the respondent to identify which websites and academic networking tools are used to create an online presence for research purposes (see figure 6).

.HG> !GBGLMBMNMBHG:EP>;LBM> ,BGD>=)G !<:=>FB:>=N 2>L>:K<A':M>G 'HH@E>3<AHE:K 2>L>:K<A>K)$ )3) /2#)$

Figure 6: Websites and online tools used for academic social networking

The results indicate that LinkedInreceived the largest distribution (26.3%) of respondents followed by Academia.edu (16.8%), ResearchGate (14.7%), Facebook (11.6%), Mendeley (8.4%), Twitter

(5.3%),Diigo(3.2%) andDeliciousandBloggerwith 1% respectively. Further, the results indicated 11.6% of the respondents having no presence on academic social networking tools (see figure 6). In terms of reference management tools with social networking capabilities, the results indicated that 61.7% of respondents did not make use of these tools. Mendeley (23.4%) received the largest distribution of respondents, followed byZoteroandCrossref(6.4%) andCiteuLike(2.1%) for usage of reference management tools with social networking capabilities (see figure 7).

Figure 7: Reference management tools with social networking capabilities used

The implication of 23.4% of respondents using Mendeley translates to the respondents having an increased online presence by virtue of creating an e-profile and linking their research publications (output) and being more discoverable via theMendeleyPapers crowdsourced catalogue and increases the opportunities of their research publications being accessed and downloaded for perusal by researchers and thus more visible in terms of knowledge sharing.

Research impact

This section of the survey focused on the research impact of the SES researcher with specific focus on their alternative research impacts. The respondents were required to identify which websites, Web search engines and/or online databases they used to search for their alternative citation information which was derived from attention data i.e. readers, views and downloads. The results indicated that

.HG> 4PBMM>K &:<>;HHD 2>L>:K<A':M> !<:=>FB:>=N ->G=>E>R $BB@H $>EB<BHNL "EH@@>K ,BGD>=)G .HG> #BM>5EBD> ->G=>E>R 9HM>KH #KHLLK>?

the majority of respondents (54%) do not use websites, Web search engines and/or online databases to search for their alternative citation impact. In addition, the results indicated Academia.edu(24%) to account for the largest percentage followed byResearchGate(20%) (see figure 8).

Figure 8: Websites, Web search engines and online databases used to search for alternative citation impact

More than half of the respondents indicated that they did not make use of these mechanisms to determine their alternative citation impact. The possible explanation for the majority not using websites, search engines and databases to determine their alternative citation impact could be that they are not aware of the value of altmetrics for research evaluation within higher education environments.

CONCLUSION

The results of the e-visibility survey report a relatively young group of emerging researchers employed on a Lecturer post level with the majority have a Masters qualification. The results indicate the majority of the respondents used free Web search engines to ascertain their online research presence with the majority also indicated not using academic social networking tools to ascertain their alternative metrics. The results also indicate an increased usage of academic social networking tools for the creation of research e-profiles. In addition, a low percentage of respondents archive their research publications onto the Institutional repositories and subject archives.

This translates to a low online research presence on academic social networking tools, with low researcher discoverability and low research accessibility which describes a low e-visibility status for the SES researchers impacting negatively on knowledge sharing. The low e-visibility status of the SES researchers allows for the opportunity for creating awareness of and promoting the benefits of e-visibility to enhance knowledge sharing. The development and introduction of an e-visibility strategy for the SES researchers would not only promote knowledge sharing but enhance the e-visibility of each researcher. Enhanced e-e-visibility translates to having an increased online research presence, increased researcher discoverability and increased research accessibility by creating and maintaining research e-profiles on academic social networking tools.

.HG> )FI:<M3MHKR 2>L>:K<A':M> !<:=>FB:>=N

REFERENCES

Ale-Ebrahim, N. and Salehi, H. (2013) 'Maximize Visibility: A Way to Increase Citation Frequency', University of Malyasia High Impact Research [Online]. Available at:

http://research.iaun.ac.ir/pd/hadisalehi/pdfs/PaperM_1589.pdf [Accessed 10 August 2015]. Ale-Ebrahim, N., Salehi, H., Embi, M.A., Gholizadeh, H., Motahar, S.M. and Ordi, A. (2013) 'Effective strategies for increasing citation frequency', International Educational Studies, 6(11), pp93–99.

Ale-Ebrahim, N., Salehi, H., Embi, M.A., Tanha, F.H., Gholizadeh, H. and Motahar, S.M., (2014) 'Visibility and Citation Impact', International Education Studies, 7(4), pp120–126. Alsagoff, Z.A. (2012) Using Social Media for Research [Online]. Available at:

http://www.slideshare.net/zaid/using-social-media-for-research-14033970?from_search=1

[Accessed 10 December 2013].

Amin, N.A.H.N., Hasnan, A.S., and Besar, N.N. (2016), 'Knowledge Sharing Using Web 2.0: Preferences, Benefits and Barriers in Brunei Darussalam’s Tertiary Education’, International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management, 7(4), pp1–18.

Arda, Z. (2012) 'Academicians on online social networks: Visibility of academic research and amplification of audience', Estudios sobre el mensaje periodístico, 18(1), pp67–75.

Bar-Ilan, J. (2014) 'Astrophysics publications on arXiv, Scopus and Mendeley: a case study', Scientometrics, 100(1), pp217–225.

Bar-Ilan, J., Haustein, S., and Peters, I. (2012) ’Beyond citations: Scholars’ visibility on the social Web', 17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Montreal, Canada, September 5-8 2012.

Campos, F. and Valencia, A. (2015) 'Managing Academic Profiles on Scientific Social

Networks', New Contributions in Information Systems and Technologies, 353(1), pp265–273. Cann, A., Dimitriou, K. and Hooley, T. (2011) Social media: a guide for researchers, London: Research Information Network.

Chang, N. (2012) ‘Creating a strong online presence as an academic - Google Search’. Kosmos [Online]. Available at: http://www.theihs.org/academic/2012/06/07/creating-a-strong-online-presence-as-an-academic-part-2-control-your-brand/[Accessed 10 August].

Chung, C. and Park, H. (2012) 'Web visibility of scholars in media and communication journals', Scientometrics, 93(1), pp207–215.

Conteh-Morgan, M. (2013) 'African Researcher 2.0: Using New Technologies to Join Global Academic Conversations', Scholarly and Research Communication, 4(2), pp1–7.

Cullen, R. and Chawner, B. (2011) 'Institutional Repositories, Open Access, and Scholarly Communication: A Study of Conflicting Paradigms', The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 37(6), pp460–470.

Czerniewicz, L. and Wiens, K. (2013) 'The online visibility of South African knowledge: Searching for poverty alleviation: Building the information society', The African Journal of Information and Communication, August 1(1), pp30–41.

Goodier, S. and Czerniewicz, L. (2012) Academics’ online presence A four-step guide to taking control of your visibility [Online]. Available at:

http://openuct.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/Online Visibility Guidelines.pdf . [Accessed 10 August 2013].

Haak, L., Fenner, M., and Paglione, L. (2012) 'ORCID: a system to uniquely identify researchers', Learned, 25(4), pp259–264.

Jantz, R.C. and Wilson, M.C. (2008) 'Institutional Repositories: Faculty Deposits, Marketing, and the Reform of Scholarly Communication', The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(3), pp186–195.

Jeng, W., He, D. and Jiang, J. (2015) 'User participation in an academic social networking service: A survey of open group users on Mendeley', Journal of the Association for Information

Science and Technology, 66(5), pp890–904.

Lawrence, S. (2001) ’Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact’, Nature, 411(6837), pp521–521.

Lin, C.C. and Tsai, C.C. (2011) 'Applying social bookmarking to collective information

searching (CIS): An analysis of behavioral pattern and peer interaction for co-exploring quality online resources', Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), pp1249–1257.

Ma, W.W.K. and Chan, A. (2014) 'Knowledge sharing and social media: Altruism, perceived online attachment motivation, and perceived online relationship commitment', Computers in Human Behavior, 39(1), pp51–58.

Mangan, K. (2012) 'Social Networks for Academics Proliferate, Despite Some Scholars', The Chronicle for Higher Education [Online]. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/Social-Networks-for-Academics/131726/[Accessed 10 August 2015].

Menendez, M., De Angeli, A. and Menestrina, Z. (2012) 'Exploring the virtual space of academia', In: J. Dugdale, C. Masclet, M.A. Grasso, J.F. Boujut and P. Hassanaly (eds.), Research to Practice in the Design of Cooperative systems: Results and Open Challenges. Springer, 2012, pp49–63.

Mikki, S., Zygmuntowska, M., and Gjesdal, Ø.L. (2015) 'Digital Presence of Norwegian Scholars on Academic Network Sites--Where and Who Are They?', PloSOne, 10(11), ppE0142709.

Niesche, C. (2013) ‘Who are you online? Creating a web presence for academics: How to make the most of your online profiles’ [Online]. Available at:

http://intheblack.com/articles/2013/06/26/who-are-you-online-creating-a-web-presence-for-academics[Accessed 10 August 2015].

Norman, E. (2012) 'Maximizing journal article citation online: readers, robots, and research visibility', Politics & Policy, 40(1), pp1–12.

Ovadia, S. (2013) 'When Social Media Meets Scholarly Publishing', Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 32(3), pp194–198.

Redden, C.S. (2010) 'Social Bookmarking in Academic Libraries: Trends and Applications', The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(3), pp219–227.

Repanovici, A. (2011) ’Measuring the visibility of the university’s scientific production through scientometric methods', Performance Measurement and Metrics, 12(2), pp106–117.

Roebuck, D.B., Siha, S. and Bell, R.L. (2013) 'Faculty usage of social media and mobile devices: analysis of advantages and concerns', Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 9(1), pp171–192.

Roth, B. and McCully, M. (2010) 'Tweeting and friending in the graduate classroom: Can social media tools work?', Proceedings of Informing Science & IT Education Conference (InSITE). Cassimo, Italy. June 2010.

Rotich, D. and Musakali, J. (2014) 'Publish or Perish: Remaining Academically Relevant and Visible In the Global Academic Scene through Scholarly Publishing', (The) Information Technologist, 11(1).

Swan, A. and Carr, L. (2008) 'Institutions, Their Repositories and the Web', Serials Review, 34(1), pp31–35.

Thorisson, G. (2012) 'Persistent, unique identifiers for authors – ORCID and smaller publishers', ScieCom Info, 8(3), pp1–4.

Ward, J., Bejarano, W. and Dudás, A. (2015) 'Scholarly social media profiles and libraries: A review', LIBER Quarterly, 22(4), pp174–204.