RECORD
User Participation in an Academic Social Networking Service: A Survey of Open Group Users on Mendeley
Social and Information Networks · Submitted 25 Jan 2014
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim Our results show that 1) participants did not engage with social-based features as frequently and actively as they engaged with research-based features, and 2) users who joined more groups seemed to have a stronger motivation to increase their professional visibility and to contribute the research articles they had read to the group reading list.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
Although there are a number of social networking services that specifically target scholars, little has been published about the actual practices and the usage of these so-called academic social networking services (ASNSs). To fill this gap, we explore the populations of academics who engage in social activities using an ASNS; as an indicator of further engagement, we also determine their various motivations for joining a group in ASNSs. Using groups and their members in Mendeley as the platform for our case study, we obtained 146 participant responses from our online survey about users' common activities, usage habits, and motivations for joining groups. Our results show that 1) participants did not engage with social-based features as frequently and actively as they engaged with research-based features, and 2) users who joined more groups seemed to have a stronger motivation to increase their professional visibility and to contribute the research articles they had read to the group reading list. Our results generate interesting insights into Mendeley's user populations, their activities, and their motivations relative to the social features of Mendeley. We also argue that further design of ASNSs is needed to take greater account of disciplinary differences in scholarly communication and to establish incentive mechanisms for encouraging user participation.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | Although there are a number of social networking services that specifically target scholars, little has been published about the actual practices and the usage of these so-called academic social networking services (ASNSs). | gap 0.77 | 0.04 | 0.02 | asserted 1.00 |
| s1 | To fill this gap, we explore the populations of academics who engage in social activities using an ASNS; as an indicator of further engagement, we also determine their various motivations for joining a group in ASNSs. | contribution 0.98 | 0.53 | 0.03 | asserted 0.71 |
| s2 | Using groups and their members in Mendeley as the platform for our case study, we obtained 146 participant responses from our online survey about users' common activities, usage habits, and motivations for joining groups. | method 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.03 | asserted 0.99 |
| s3 | Our results show that 1) participants did not engage with social-based features as frequently and actively as they engaged with research-based features, and 2) users who joined more groups seemed to have a stronger motivation to increase their professional visibility and to contribute the research articles they had read to the group reading list. | result 1.00 | 0.97 | 0.81 | asserted 1.00 |
| s4 | Our results generate interesting insights into Mendeley's user populations, their activities, and their motivations relative to the social features of Mendeley. | interpretation 0.96 | 0.81 | 0.16 | asserted 0.91 |
| s5 | We also argue that further design of ASNSs is needed to take greater account of disciplinary differences in scholarly communication and to establish incentive mechanisms for encouraging user participation. | future work 0.99 | 0.18 | 0.28 | asserted 0.77 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v3
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
Although there are a number of social networking services that specifically target scholars, little has been published about the actual practices and the usage of these so-called academic social networking services (ASNSs). To fill this gap, we explore the populations of academics who engage in social activities using an ASNS; as an indicator of further engagement, we also determine their various motivations for joining a group in ASNSs. Using groups and their members in Mendeley as the platform for our case study, we obtained 146 participant responses from our online survey about users' common activities, usage habits, and motivations for joining groups. Our results show that 1) participants did not engage with social-based features as frequently and actively as they engaged with research-based features, and 2) users who joined more groups seemed to have a stronger motivation to increase their professional visibility and to contribute the research articles they had read to the group reading list. Our results generate interesting insights into Mendeley's user populations, their activities, and their motivations relative to the social features of Mendeley. We also argue that further design of ASNSs is needed to take greater account of disciplinary differences in scholarly communication and to establish incentive mechanisms for encouraging user participation.
Human review
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.