– Wikipedia is an American for-profit social networking website for academics. It began as a free and open repository of academic journal articles and registered a .edu domain name when this was not limited to educational institutions.[3]

The site was launched in September 2008.[4][5]


History[edit] was founded by Richard Price.[citation needed ]

On its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company uses the legal name Academia Inc.[6][7]

[external_link offset=1]

Months after its acquisition of rival Mendeley, Elsevier sent thousands of takedown notices to, a practice that has since ceased, following widespread complaint by academics, according to founder and chief executive Richard Price.[8][9]

Competitors[edit]’s competitors include ResearchGate, Google Scholar and Mendeley.[10] Compared to ResearchGate, in 2016 reportedly had more registered users (about 34 million versus 11 million[11]) and higher web traffic, but ResearchGate was substantially larger in terms of active usage by researchers. As of 2020, the traffic ranks had reversed, with ResearchGate being a top 150–200 website in the global Alexa ranks, versus a position in the 200–300 range for[citation needed ]

Unpaywall, which collects data about open access versions of academic publications and provides easy access to them, is considered a competitor to for the users who prefer more legally sound green open access hosts.[12]

Criticism[edit] is not a university or institution for higher learning and so under current standards it would not qualify for the “.edu” top-level domain. However, the domain name “” was registered in 1999, before the regulations required .edu domain names to be held solely by accredited post-secondary institutions. All .edu domain names registered before 2001 were grandfathered in, even if not an accredited post-secondary institution.[13][14]

A critic, Kathleen Fitzpatrick, the director of scholarly communication at the Modern Language Association, said she found the use of the “.edu” domain name by to be “extremely problematic”, since it might mislead users into thinking the site is part of an accredited educational institution rather than a for-profit company.[14] claims it supports the open science or open access movements and, in particular, instant distribution of research, and a peer-review system that occurs alongside distribution, instead of before it.[15] Accordingly, the company stated its opposition to the proposed (since withdrawn) 2011 U.S. Research Works Act, which would have prevented open-access mandates in the U.S.[16]

[external_link offset=2]

However, is not an open access repository and is not recommended as a way to pursue green open access by Peter Suber and experts, who instead invite researchers to use field-specific repositories or general-purpose repositories like Zenodo.[17]

In early 2016, some users reported having received e-mails from where they were asked if they would be interested in paying a fee to have their papers recommended by the website’s editors.[18] This led some users to start a campaign encouraging users to cancel their accounts.[19]

Other criticisms include the fact that uses a vendor lock-in model: “It’s up to to decide what you can and can’t do with the information you’ve given them, and they’re not likely to make it easy for alternative methods to access”.[19] This is in reference to the fact that, although papers can be read by non-users, a free account is needed in order to download papers: “you need to be logged in to do most of the useful things on the site (even as a casual reader)”.[19]

In December 2016, announced new premium features that includes data analytics on work and the professional rank of the viewers,[20] which have also received criticism.[21][22][23]


  1. ^ “Our Mission”. Retrieved updating.
  2. ^ “Hiring”. Retrieved updating.
  3. ^ Duffy, Brooke Erin; Pooley, Jefferson D. (January 2017). “” Facebook for Academics”: The Convergence of Self-Branding and Social Media Logic on”. Social Media + Society. 3 (1): updating. doi:10.1177/updating3.
  4. ^ Cutler, Kim-Mai. “Academia.Edu Overhauls Profiles As The Onus Falls On Researchers To Manage Their Personal Brands”. Techcrunch. Retrieved updating.
  5. ^ “About”. Retrieved updating.
  6. ^ “A social networking site is not an open access repository”. University of California Office of Scholarly Communication. Retrieved 7 July 2016.
  7. ^ “Most followed account on”. Retrieved 18 July 2021.
  8. ^ Parr, Chris (June 12, 2014). “Sharing is a way of life for millions on”. Times Higher Education. Retrieved 14 September 2015.
  9. ^ Howard, Jennifer (December 6, 2013). “Posting Your Latest Article? You Might Have to Take It Down”. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 14 September 2015.
  10. ^ Matthews, David (7 April 2016). “Do academic social networks share academics’ interests?”. Times Higher Education. Archived from the original on updating. Retrieved updating.
  11. ^ Satariano, Adam (15 November 2016). “Bill Gates-Backed Research Network Targets Advertising Revenue”. Bloomberg. Archived from the original on updating. Retrieved updating.
  12. ^ Dhakal, Kerry (15 April 2019). “Unpaywall”. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 107 (2): 286–288. doi:10.5195/jmla.updating. PMC 6466485.
  13. ^ “edu Policy Information”. updating. Archived from the original on updating. Retrieved updating.
  14. ^ a b McKenna, Laura (17 December 2015). “The Convoluted Profits of Academic Publishing”. The Atlantic.
  15. ^ Richard Price (updating). “The Future of Peer Review”. TechCrunch. Retrieved updating.
  16. ^ Richard Price (updating). “The Dangerous “Research Works Act” “. TechCrunch. Retrieved updating.
  17. ^ Peter Suber (2016). “Open Access book §10 self help”.
  18. ^ “Scholars Criticize Proposal to Charge Authors for Recommendations”. The Chronicle of Higher Education. updating. Retrieved updating.
  19. ^ a b c “Should you #DeleteAcademiaEdu? On the role of commercial services in scholarly communication”. Impact of Social Sciences. updating. Retrieved updating.
  20. ^ Team, The Academia edu (updating). “How do people find your papers? Introduces a New Premium Feature”. Medium. Retrieved updating.
  21. ^ Bond, Sarah. “Dear Scholars, Delete Your Account At Academia.Edu”. Forbes. Retrieved updating.
  22. ^ “Academia, Not Edu”. Planned Obsolescence. updating. Retrieved updating.
  23. ^ “The end of how business takes over, again”. diggit magazine. updating. Retrieved updating.

External links[edit]

  • Official website


Viết một bình luận