The use of academic profiling sites is becoming more common, and emerging technologies boost researchers’ visibility and exchange of ideas. In our study we compared profiles at five different profiling sites. These five sites are ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID and ORCID. The data set is enriched by demographic information including age, gender, position and affiliation, which are provided by the national CRIS-system in Norway. We find that approximately 37% of researchers at the University of Bergen have at least one profile, the prevalence being highest (> 40%) for members at the Faculty of Psychology and the Faculty of Social Sciences. Across all disciplines, ResearchGate is the most widely used platform. However, within Faculty of Humanities, Academia.edu is the preferred one. Researchers are reluctant to maintain multiple profiles, and there is little overlap between different services. Age turns out to be a poor indicator for presence in the investigated profiling sites, women are underrepresented and professors together with PhD students are the most likely profile holders. We next investigated the correlation between bibliometric measures, such as publications and citations, and user activities, such as downloads and followers. We find different bibliometric indicators to correlate strongly within individual platforms and across platforms. There is however less agreement between the traditional bibliometric and social activity indicators.

Based on the total scholarly article output of Norway, we investigated the coverage and degree of openness according to the following three bibliographic services: (1) Google Scholar, (2) oaDOI by Impact Story, and (3) 1findr by 1science. According to Google Scholar, we found that more than 70% of all Norwegian articles are openly available. However, the degrees of openness are profoundly lower according to oaDOI and 1findr at 31% and 52%, respectively. Varying degrees of openness are mainly caused by different interpretations of openness, with oaDOI being the most restrictive. Furthermore, open shares vary considerably by discipline, with the medicine and health sciences at the upper end and the humanities at the lower end. We also determined the citation frequencies using cited-by values in Google Scholar and applying year and subject normalization. We found a significant citation advantage for open articles. However, this was not the case for all types of openness. In fact, the category of open access journals was by far the lowest cited, indicating that young journals with a declared open access policy still lack recognition.

Purpose of this paper 2 In this study, we compare the content of Web of Science and Google Scholar by searching the 3 interdisciplinary field of climate and ancient societies. We aim at analyzing the retrieved documents 4 by open availability, received citations, co-authors and type of publication. 5 Design/methodolology/approach 6 We searched the services by a defined set of keyword. Data was retrieved and analyzed using 7 a variety of bibliometric tools such as Publish or Perish, Sci2Tool and Gephi. In order to determine 8 the proportion of open full texts based on the Web of Science result, we relocated the records in 9 Google Scholar, using an off-campus internet connection. 10 Findings 11 We found that the top thousand downloadable and analyzable Google Scholar items 12 matched poorly with the items retrieved by Web of Science. Based on this approach (subject-13 searching), the services appeared complementary rather than similar. 14 Even though the first search results differ considerably by service, almost each single Web of 15 Science title could be located in Google Scholar. Based on Google Scholar's full text recognition, we 16 found 74 % of Web of Science items openly available and the citation median of these was twice as 17 high as for documents behind paywalls. 18 Research limitations/implications 19 Even though our study is a case study, we believe that findings are transferable to other 20 interdisciplinary fields. The share of freely available documents, however, may depend on the 21 investigated field and its culture towards open publishing. 22 2 Practical implications 23 Discovering the literature of interdisciplinary fields puts scholars in a challenging situation 24 and requires a better understanding of the existing infrastructures. We hope our paper contributes 25 to that and can advise the research and library communities. 26 What is the original/value of paper 27 In light of an overwhelming and exponentially growing amount of literature, our bibliometric approach is new in a library context.

Based on the total scholarly article output of Norway, we investigated the coverage and degree of openness according to three bibliographic services 1) Google Scholar, 2) oaDOI by Impact Story and 3) 1findr by 1science. According to Google Scholar, we find that more than 70% of all Norwegian articles are openly available. However, degrees are profoundly lower according to oaDOI and 1findr, respectively 31% and 52%. Varying degrees are mainly caused by different interpretations of openness, with oaDOI being most restrictive. Furthermore, open shares vary considerably by discipline, with the Medcine and Health sciences at the upper and the Humanities at the lower end. We also determined the citation frequencies using Cited-by values as of Google Scholar, applying year and subject normalization. We find a significant citation advantage for open articles. However, this is not the case for all types of openness. In fact, the category Open Access journals was by far lowest cited, indicating that young journals with a declared open access policy still lack recognition.

See video of the presentation.We investigate the digital presence of scholars at different academic Web sites. With new technologies, creating profiles, disseminating and exchanging ideas is easily done, and scholars are more likely to attend the networks and impact their community.In our study we compare research profiles of employees at the University of Bergen at five different academic network sites. The sites are ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Google Scholar, ResearcherID and ORCID. CRIStin, the Current Research Information System in Norway (www.cristin.no), is used as a reference value. CRIStin is a national database which contains quality-assured data on scientific publications including supplementary author details such as age, gender, position and affiliation. All investigated sites have varying scopes (and degree of control), but also common features which are worth to investigate and compare.Data is collected using Web scraping applications developed at the University of Bergen Library by searching for the researchers that are affiliated with the University of Bergen.  This was achieved by analyzing the Document Object Model (DOM) of every academic site and then building up a set of selectors and expressions, so that the DOM could be traversed programmatically and indicators extracted.Author recognition is then done by comparing names given in the services with names in CRIStin. After extensive data cleansing and deduplication we were able to compare the different services.Our first goal is to determine number of profiles and degree of overlap. The overlap tells us whether scholars are willing to maintain their profiles at several services. Preference of platform in regard to faculty affiliation, position and age is another aspect of our investigation.Further, we analyze extracted indicators in regard to traditional bibliometric and “altmetric” measures. Bibliometric measures are related to publications and citations, while “altmetric” indicators comprise different forms of Web activities such as followers, following, views and downloads. The indicators vary from service to service, and a correlation analysis tells us whether indicators are related to each other or not. We find that about 37% of researchers at the University of Bergen have at least one profile. They are reluctant to maintain several profiles and overlap was therefore relatively small. Age is a poor predictor of web site use, and women are underrepresented on the investigated platforms. The representation is highest at the Faculty of Psychology and the Faculty of Social Sciences (> 40%). Available indicators show high correlation within bibliometric indicators, but correlation is weak with social and activity indicators across platforms.