Trata-se de Academia.edu, neste link geral:
https://www.academia.edu/
O meu site, ou meu espaço está neste link:
https://uniceub.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida
Estou recém começando -- recomeçando, em vários casos -- a colocar os meus textos; como são muitos, vai demorar um bocado para eu colocar todos os mais interessantes.
Abaixo uma descrição sumária e um artigo na revista Forbes sobre esta plataforma.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Academia.edu is a platform for academics to share research papers. The company's mission is to accelerate the world's research.
Academics use Academia.edu to share their research, monitor deep analytics around the impact of their research, and track the research of academics they follow. 6,567,437 academics have signed up to Academia.edu, adding 1,616,771 papers and 957,662 research interests. Academia.edu attracts over 5 million unique visitors a month.
Forbes, 8/19/2012 @ 4:07PM |2,607 views
Alex KnapWho's Reading And Using Scientific Papers? Academia Will Find Out
Comment Now
Follow Comments
One of the best things about the widespread adoption of the internet and social media has been the ability of scientists to share their research quickly. Sites like ArXiv andResearchGate allow papers and other data to be shared among like-minded academics and the public alike prior to journal publication. But despite the easy spread of information, one problem remains: how can academics determine how influential and impactful their work truly is? That’s where Academia.edu, one of the largest academic social networks, has stepped in.
The site currently has over 1.6 million members, who have submitted over 1.5 million pieces of research. To help make that data more meaningful to the researchers who use they site, they developed an analytics dashboard that allows scientists to determine the true reach of their papers and data. Last week, that dashboard left beta and is now open to all members of the site. This, the site hopes, will be a major step forward in advancing the research and careers of its members.
“Academic and scientific discourse is mediated by paper supremacy. Over the last ten years, the landscape has changed to the point that most academics review research online,” Academia.edu co-founder Richard Price explained to me on the phone. “But what hasn’t caught up is a way to measure the impact of research uploaded online. We’re in the middle of a fascinating transition in science to being a web-native form of communication.”
So where scientists are finding themselves – especially early in their careers – is a point where they have a difficult time demonstrating to grant and tenure committees how much impact their previous work has had. That’s because, Price explained to me, there’s a significant time lag currently in the system. Because of the time it takes to publish, and then the time it takes for other researchers to use and cite your work, then have their results published, it can be five years or longer before a researcher has any metrics to demonstrate the impact of their work.
That’s where Academia.edu’s new dashboard steps in. When researchers update their paper to the site, they’ll be able to track the same types of analytics that websites use. This includes the total number of people who’ve viewed a paper, what sites are referring people to their paper, and what countries researchers are reading those papers from.
“One can glean from Academia.edu stats new ways of conceptualizing research impact,” said Tim Ritchie, a University of Limerick lecturer said in a press release. “When I was being considered for a promotion, my Academia.edu stats demonstrated to members of our promotion committee that what they helped fund — and the work we produce from such funding — actually gets searched for, read, and printed. Knowing that people outside my own network of international collaborators actually read our work intrigues and inspires me.”
One other benefit of these statistics, notes Price, is that they provide an incentive to researchers to update raw data, not just finished papers. That’s because, he said, “the science funding market is so competitive, this allows researchers to add another arrow to quiver. Hiring and grant committees really care about this stuff. Historically, all those committees can look at were journal publications. I expect this to lead to the emergence of a much larger range of media used to explain and explore research.”