LinkedIn has become an increasingly popular platform for professionals to network, build their personal brand, and share insights. With over 750 million members, it offers a massive audience for those looking to establish thought leadership and get their voice heard. This has led some academics and researchers to consider using LinkedIn as a channel for disseminating their scholarly work. However, there are important factors to weigh when deciding whether LinkedIn is an appropriate venue for publishing peer-reviewed research.
Benefits of sharing research on LinkedIn
Here are some potential advantages of sharing research content on LinkedIn:
- Reach a broad audience – With LinkedIn’s huge user base, research shared there has the potential to reach far more readers than traditional academic journals. This can help increase the impact and visibility of your work.
- Connect with practitioners – LinkedIn provides access to professionals and practitioners who can apply and implement your research findings in the real world. Their feedback can inform future research questions and directions.
- Promote open science – Making research openly available promotes principles of open science and knowledge sharing. This aligns with LinkedIn’s mission of creating economic opportunity for professionals.
- Establish thought leadership – Sharing research is a way to demonstrate expertise and thought leadership which can enhance your professional brand and reputation.
- Increase citation metrics – More readers can lead to higher altmetrics scores and citations for your work. This contributes to measurable academic impact.
By taking advantage of LinkedIn’s reach, you can amplify the visibility of your scholarship beyond just academic circles. The networking possibilities also support research collaboration and implementation.
Challenges of posting research on LinkedIn
However, there are also some drawbacks to keep in mind when assessing LinkedIn’s suitability as a publishing platform:
- Not a peer-reviewed venue – Unlike journals, content on LinkedIn does not undergo rigorous peer review. This may raise concerns about quality control.
- No preprint option – Unlike sites like arXiv, LinkedIn does not support preprints which allow early sharing prior to formal publication.
- Audience expectations – The LinkedIn audience expects business insights and digestible takeaways. Dense academic writing may not resonate.
- Limited formatting – LinkedIn has fewer formatting options which may not properly render discipline-specific text, symbols, charts, etc.
- Copyright issues – Publishers typically hold copyright over published journal articles. This restricts the ability to freely share final published PDFs.
- Transient content – The LinkedIn newsfeed model means posts have a limited shelf life and can quickly get buried.
These factors suggest LinkedIn may not provide an ideal singular platform for scholarly content. The informal sharing format creates barriers for rigor and permanence.
Best practices for sharing research on LinkedIn
If you do wish to share research on LinkedIn, here are some best practices to follow:
- Share an overview, highlights or commentary rather than the full published paper. This allows showcasing key insights in a readable way.
- Link to the original published source for those interested in accessing the full paper.
- Adapt the tone for a general professional audience. Avoid jargon and explain concepts clearly.
- Summarize key findings in an engaging style using lists, graphics, etc. Stay under 2,000 words for readability.
- Pose open-ended questions to spark discussion and invite practitioner perspectives.
- Monitor comments to learn how findings are being interpreted and applied by readers.
- Use alt text for all graphics to maximize accessibility.
- Post at optimal times when readership is high to increase reach.
With the right approach, it is possible to share useful scholarly insights on LinkedIn while steering clear of copyright issues. But it is wise to view it as a supplement rather than alternative to formal publication.
Evaluating other platforms for sharing research
Beyond LinkedIn, researchers have an expanding menu of options when looking for places to share scholarly work openly online. Here is an overview of key alternatives:
Preprint servers
- arXiv – The leading preprint server for physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering, and systems science. Preprints can be shared prior to or during submission for formal peer review.
- bioRxiv – Preprint server for the biological sciences launched by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Allows sharing of preprints prior to peer review.
- SocArXiv – An open archive of the social sciences operated by a partnership of academic institutions and non-profit groups. Covers social science disciplines including sociology, anthropology, law, and political science.
Institutional repositories
Many academic institutions operate digital repositories that house intellectual output produced by their researchers and faculty. These usually include published papers, preprints, thesis/dissertations, and other scholarly material. Some examples:
- MIT DSpace@MIT – Massachusetts Institute of Technology repository
- CiteSeerX – Focused on literature in computer and information science
- DASH – Harvard University’s central open access repository
- eScholarship – Open access scholarship repository from University of California
Academic social networks
Sites dedicated specifically to scholarly collaboration, publishing, and discussion:
- Academia.edu – Platform for academics to share and follow research papers, monitor analytics, connect with scholars, and share ideas
- ResearchGate – Social network for scientists and researchers to share publications, ask and answer questions, and find collaborators.
- Mendeley – Reference manager and academic social network with groups, research profiles, and paper repositories.
Each option carries different strengths and focuses. But overall, researchers today have an abundance of channels beyond just journals for disseminating their work openly online.
Conclusion
In summary, while LinkedIn provides a unique platform for amplifying research to a broad professional audience, it poses limitations as a singular destination for scholarly publishing due to factors like lack of peer review and copyright restrictions. Researchers should view LinkedIn as one supplemental option as part of a broader open science strategy encompassing preprint servers, institutional repositories, academic networking sites, and more. With a mix of both formal and informal channels, scholars can maximize the visibility and impact of their work across diverse audiences. But LinkedIn alone does not make for an ideal research publishing solution. The most prudent approach is sharing high-level summaries and commentary to provide value for practitioners while linking to full peer-reviewed sources. With proper expectations, LinkedIn can be one beneficial addition to the research dissemination toolkit.
