EDP Sciences logo
Subscriber Authentication Point
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 33 / No 6-7 (Juin-Juillet 2017) Med Sci (Paris), 33 6-7 (2017) 647-652 References
Free Access
Issue
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 33, Number 6-7, Juin-Juillet 2017
Page(s) 647 - 652
Section Repères
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/20173306023
Published online 19 July 2017
  1. Williams AE, Woodacre MA. The possibilities and perils of academic social networking sites. Online Inf Rev 2016 ; 40 : 282–294. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Gallezot G, Le Deuff O. Chercheurs 2.0 ? Les Cahiers du numérique 2010; 5 : 15–31. [Google Scholar]
  3. Réseaux sociaux de la recherche et Open Access. Perception des chercheurs. Etude exploratoire. Disponible sur <http://couperin.org/images/stories/openaire/Couperin_RSDR%20et%20OA_Etude%20exploratoire_2014.pdf>. [Google Scholar]
  4. Thelwall M, Kousha K. ResearchGate: Disseminating, Communicating, and Measuring Scholarship ?. JASIST 2015 ; 66 : 876–889. [Google Scholar]
  5. Thelwall M, Kousha K. ResearchGate articles: Age, discipline, audience size, and impact. JASIST 2016 ; 68 : 468–479. [Google Scholar]
  6. Van Noorden R. Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature 2014 ; 512 : 126–129. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Mikki S, Zygmuntowska M, Gjesdal ØL, et al. Digital presence of Norwegian scholars on academic network sites-Where and who are they ?. PLoS ONE 2015 ; 10 : e0142709. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Boudry C. « Biologie/médecine 2.0 » : état des lieux. Med Sci (Paris) 2012 ; 28 : 653–658. [Google Scholar]
  9. Boudry C. Web 2.0 Applications in Medicine: Trends and Topics in the Literature. Med 2.0 2015; 4 : e2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Thelwall M, Kousha K. Academia.edu: Social network or Academic Network ? JASIST 2014; 65 : 721–31. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ortega JL. Disciplinary differences in the use of academic social networking sites. Online Inform Rev 2015 ; 39 : 520–536. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Doyle J, Cuthill M. Does, “get visible or vanish” herald the end of “publish or perish” ?. Higher Education Research & Development 2015 ; 34 : 671–674. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Boudry C, Durand-Barthez M. Publications en libre accès en biologie – médecine : historique et état des lieux en 2016. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health 2017 ; 3 : 168–180. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Boudry C, Bozet G. Recherche bibliographique en biologie et en médecine : du bon usage de Medline Pubmed. Med Sci (Paris) 2004 ; 20 : 804–807. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Boudry C, Denion E, Mortemousque B, et al. Trends and topics in eye disease research in PubMed from 2010 to 2014. PeerJ 2016 ; 4 : e1557. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Boudry C, Chartron G. Availability of digital object identifiers in publications archived by PubMed. Scientometrics 2017 ; 110 : 1453–1469. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Virtual Networks, Open Science and Digital Revolutions. Disponible sur <http://lab.cccb.org/en/virtual-networks-open-science-and-digital-revolutions/>. [Google Scholar]
  18. ResearchGate fact sheet. ResearchGate fact sheetDisponible sur <https://www.researchgate.net/aboutus.AboutUsPress.downloadFile.html?name=rg_fact_sheet.pdf&gt. [Google Scholar]
  19. Orduña-Malea E, Martín-Martín A, López-Cózar ED. ResearchGate como fuente de evaluación científica: desvelando sus aplicaciones bibliométricas. El profesional de la información 2016 ; 25 : 303–310. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Innovations in Scholarly Communication. Innovations in Scholarly CommunicationDisponible sur <https://101innovations.wordpress.com/>. [Google Scholar]
  21. Jamali HR, Nabavi M. Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields. Scientometrics 2015 ; 105 : 1635–1651. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Vardakas KZ, Tsopanakis G, Poulopoulou A, et al. An analysis of factors contributing to PubMed’s growth. J Informetr 2015 ; 9 : 592–617. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Björk B-C, Laakso M, Welling P, et al. Anatomy of green open access. JASIST 2014 ; 65 : 237–250. [Google Scholar]
  24. Posting Your Latest Article ? You Might Have to Take It Down – Wired Campus – Blogs – The Chronicle of Higher Education. Disponible sur <http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest-article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down/48865>. [Google Scholar]
  25. #DeleteAcademicSocialNetworks ? Les réseaux sociaux académiques en 2016. Disponible sur <http://urfistinfo.hypotheses.org/3033>. [Google Scholar]
  26. SHERPA/RoMEO – Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving. Disponible sur <http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php>. [Google Scholar]
  27. Academia.edu | Terms. Disponible sur <https://www.academia.edu/terms>. [Google Scholar]
  28. Research Information Network. Monitoring the Transition to Open Access. A report for the Universities UK Open Access Co-ordination Group. Disponible sur <https://www.acu.ac.uk/research-information-network/monitoring-transition-to-open-access>. [Google Scholar]
  29. Get the infographic! “Beyond Downloads: How scholars save & share articles”. Disponible sur <https://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/articles/get-infographic-beyond-downloads-how-scholars-save-share-articles>. [Google Scholar]
  30. Laakso M. Green open access policies of scholarly journal publishers: a study of what, when, and where self-archiving is allowed. Scientometrics 2013 ; 99 : 475–494. [Google Scholar]
  31. ResearchGate. Terms and Conditions. Disponible sur <https://www.researchgate.net/application.TermsAndConditions.html>. [Google Scholar]
  32. A social networking site is not an open access repository. Disponible sur <http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2015/12/a-social-networking-site-is-not-an-open-access-repository/>. [Google Scholar]
  33. Yu M-C, Wu Y-CJ, Alhalabi W, et al. ResearchGate: An effective altmetric indicator for active researchers ?. Comput Human Behav 2016 ; 55 : 1001–1006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. ROAR. Disponible sur <http://roar.eprints.org/>. [Google Scholar]
  35. ROARMAP. Disponible sur <http://roarmap.eprints.org/>. [Google Scholar]
  36. Nicholas D, Boukacem-Zeghmouri C, Rodríguez-Bravo B, et al. Where and how early career researchers find scholarly information. Learned Publishing 2017 ; 30 : 19–29. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  37. Borrego Á. The depositing habits of Spanish researchers: Institutional repositories versus ResearchGate. Learned Publishing 2017. 10.1002/leap.1099 [Google Scholar]
  38. Vos dépôts dans HAL : ce qui change avec la loi pour une République Numérique | CCSD. Disponible sur <https://www.ccsd.cnrs.fr/fr/2016/10/vos-depots-dans-hal-ce-qui-change-avec-la-loi-pour-une-republique-numerique/>. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.