Hábitos de los investigadores de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales para visibilizar sus publicaciones en el entorno digital. Un estudio de caso argentino

Abstract

[ES]Este trabajo se propuso identificar hábitos que investigadores del área de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales relacionados con el Instituto de Investigaciones en Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales -Argentina-, han adquirido para difundir y visibilizar sus publicaciones en el entorno digital, específicamente, a través del uso de dos redes sociales académicas: Academia (AE) y ResearchGate (RG) y del repositorio institucional, Memoria Académica. Se definió una triangulación de métodos secuencial, combinando técnicas cuantitativas para analizar los datos relevados de las redes sociales y cualitativas, para identificar razones de preferencia de uno u otro servicio. Como principales resultados se encontró que: un 46,25% está presente en las redes estudiadas y que sólo un 11,38% tienen perfil en ambas; el uso dado para difundir y visibilizar la producción es menor y que se usan para acceder a documentos y conocer producción de colegas y contactarse; la cantidad de documentos disponibles en AE es el triple que el de RGsiendo más frecuentes los artículos; AE es preferida por sus funcionalidades, sencillez y audiencia potencial; los motivos para autoarchivar en el repositorio se relacionan con la pertenencia institucional, el compromiso social y el prestigio de la institución; y algunos investigadores prefieren las redes como primer canal de difusión, por su inmediatez y alcance. Se concluye que la principal diferencia entre los motivos de uso de ambas tecnologías reside en los mecanismos autoarchivar, en la audiencia específica y la interconexión con colegas. Además, que estas redes sociales se usan como fuente de obtención gratuita de documentos, lo que las transforma de hecho en un canal de distribución informal del Acceso Abierto. [EN] This work aimed to identify habits that researchers from the Humanities and Social Sciences area related to the Instituto de Investigaciones en Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales - Argentina - have acquired to disseminate and visualize their publications in the digital environment, specifically, through the use of two academic social networks: Academia (AE) and ResearchGate (RG) and the institutional repository, Memoria Académica. A triangulation of sequential methods was defined, combining quantitative techniques to analyze the data collected from social and qualitative networks, to identify reasons of preference of one or the other service. As main results it was found that: 46.25% is present in the networks studied and only 11.38% have profile in both; the use given to diffuse and visualize the production is smaller and that are used to access documents and know production of colleagues and contact; the number of documents available in AE is three times that of RG, with articles being more frequent; AE is preferred by its functionalities, simplicity and potential audience; the reasons for self-archiving in the repository are related to institutional affiliation, social commitment and prestige of the institution; and, some researchers prefer networks as the first broadcast channel, because of their immediacy and reach. It is concluded that the main difference between the reasons of use of both technologies resides in the autoarchivar mechanisms, in the specific hearing and the interconnection with colleagues. In addition, these social networks are used as a source of free collection of documents, which in fact makes them an informal channel of Open Access.

[EN] This work aimed to identify habits that researchers from the Humanities and Social Sciences area related to the Instituto de Investigaciones en Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales - Argentina - have acquired to disseminate and visualize their publications in the digital environment, specifically, through the use of two academic social networks: Academia (AE) and ResearchGate (RG) and the institutional repository, Memoria Académica. A triangulation of sequential methods was defined, combining quantitative techniques to analyze the data collected from social and qualitative networks, to identify reasons of preference of one or the other service. As main results it was found that: 46.25% is present in the networks studied and only 11.38% have profile in both; the use given to diffuse and visualize the production is smaller and that are used to access documents and know production of colleagues and contact; the number of documents available in AE is three times that of RG, with articles being more frequent; AE is preferred by its functionalities, simplicity and potential audience; the reasons for self-archiving in the repository are related to institutional affiliation, social commitment and prestige of the institution; and, some researchers prefer networks as the first broadcast channel, because of their immediacy and reach. It is concluded that the main difference between the reasons of use of both technologies resides in the autoarchivar mechanisms, in the specific hearing and the interconnection with colleagues. In addition, these social networks are used as a source of free collection of documents, which in fact makes them an informal channel of Open Access.