From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The topic certainly not less important than, e.g., of ResearchGate. Dr Oldekop (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

List of competitors[edit]

Do we really need a competitor's list on here? Those links may be better listed here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2011‎ (UTC)

How is this open access?[edit]

The papers posted are only available to those with accounts, and as far as I can tell judging from the terms, the accounts require connections with one or another academic institution. The papers are not available to lay scholars, hobbyists, or the general public. (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That is just not true - the papers are available to anyone that goes to their site. Just type in the keywords you are interested in and you can get to the articles if they authors have uploaded them. --Smithyour (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
No "connections with one or another academic institution" are required to register with (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

criticisms, controversies[edit]

Feels like the article needs a section like this. There surely must be plenty of criticism and controversy since is a for profit corporation and other for-profits, e.g. academic journals, might be losing part of their market since some authors are posting their articles here for free. Refer to sources on the Elsevier case... (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)R.E.D.

See also #DeleteAcademiaEdu , with reporting at . (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I got my first piece of spam from today: "[Co-author name]'s co-author tag is pending your approval. Hi [My name], [Co-author name] tagged you as a co-author on: [Article name]. To approve this tag, please visit the link below: [url]. You can opt out of receiving these kinds of emails from with the link below: [url]." So very similar to the researchgate spam, though at least this one doesn't have my co-author as the from address, like researchgate does. This spamming practice should be mentioned in a criticism section, if someone can find a secondary source about it. Amaurea (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)