The use of recommender systems is increasing on academic social media (ASM). However, distinguishing the elements that may be influenced and/or exert influence over content that is read and disseminated by researchers is difficult due to the opacity of the algorithms that filter information on ASM. In this article, the purpose of this paper is to investigate how algorithmic mediation through recommender systems in ResearchGate may uphold biases in scholarly communication.
The authors used a multi-method walkthrough approach including a patent analysis, an interface analysis and an inspection of the web page code.
The findings reveal how audience influences on the recommendations and demonstrate in practice the mutual shaping of the different elements interplaying within the platform (artefact, practices and arrangements). The authors show evidence of the mechanisms of selection, prioritization, datafication and profiling. The authors also substantiate how the algorithm reinforces the reputation of eminent researchers (a phenomenon called the Matthew effect). As part of defining a future agenda, we discuss the need for serendipity and algorithmic transparency.
Algorithms change constantly and are protected by commercial secrecy. Hence, this study was limited to the information that was accessible within a particular period. At the time of publication, the platform, its logic and its effects on the interface may have changed. Future studies might investigate other ASM using the same approach to distinguish potential patterns among platforms.
Contributes to reflect on algorithmic mediation and biases in scholarly communication potentially afforded by recommender algorithms. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first empirical study on automated mediation and biases in ASM.
