Towards a second generation of ‘social media metrics’: Characterizing Twitter communities of attention around science

‘Social media metrics’ are bursting into science studies as emerging new measures of impact related to scholarly activities. However, their meaning and scope as scholarly metrics is still far from being grasped. This research seeks to shift focus from the consideration of social media metrics around science as mere indicators confined to the analysis of the use and visibility of publications on social media to their consideration as metrics of interaction and circulation of scientific knowledge across different communities of attention, and particularly as metrics that can also be used to characterize these communities. Although recent research efforts have proposed tentative typologies of social media users, no study has empirically examined the full range of Twitter user’s behavior within Twitter and disclosed the latent dimensions in which activity on Twitter around science can be classified. To do so, we draw on the overall activity of social media users on Twitter interacting with research objects collected from the Altmetic.com database. Data from over 1.3 million unique users, accounting for over 14 million tweets to scientific publications, is analyzed. Based on an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, four latent dimensions are identified: ‘Science Engagement’, ‘Social Media Capital’, ‘Social Media Activity’ and ‘Science Focus’. Evidence on the predominant type of users by each of the four dimensions is provided by means of VOSviewer term maps of Twitter profile descriptions. This research breaks new ground for the systematic analysis and characterization of social media users’ activity around science.

[1]  Alfred J. Lotka,et al.  The frequency distribution of scientific productivity , 1926 .

[2]  H. Kaiser.  The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis , 1960 .

[3]  D J PRICE,et al.  NETWORKS OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS. , 1965, Science.

[4]  B. Martin,et al.  Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy , 1983 .

[5]  J. Richardson.  Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education , 1986 .

[6]  B. Martin,et al.  Assessing Basic Research : Some Partial Indicators of Scientific Progress in Radio Astronomy : Research Policy , 1987 .

[7]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[8]  N. Lin.  Buidling a Network Theory of Social Capital , 1999, Connections.

[9]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[10]  Richard Smith,et al.  Measuring the social impact of research , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  M. Browne.  An Overview of Analytic Rotation in Exploratory Factor Analysis , 2001 .

[12]  P. Bourdieu.  Forms of Capital , 2002 .

[13]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research , 2005 .

[14]  Rebecca Weston,et al.  A Brief Guide to Structural Equation Modeling , 2006 .

[15]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Vos: A New Method for Visualizing Similarities between Objects , 2006, GfKl.

[16]  C. Borgman.  Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet , 2007 .

[17]  Pui‐wa Lei,et al.  Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Practical Considerations , 2007 .

[18]  The Pathway from Idea to Regulatory Approval: Examples for Drug Development , 2009 .

[19]  Edward Nason,et al.  Health research: measuring the social, health and economic benefits , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[20]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping , 2009, Scientometrics.

[21]  Christos H. Skiadas,et al.  Advances in Data Analysis , 2010 .

[22]  Petter Bae Brandtzæg,et al.  Towards a unified Media-User Typology (MUT): A meta-analysis and review of the research literature on media-user typologies , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[23]  Hosung Park,et al.  What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? , 2010, WWW '10.

[24]  David B. Resnik,et al.  Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice , 2010, Environmental Health Perspectives.

[25]  John G. Breslin,et al.  Understanding how Twitter is used to spread scientific messages , 2010 .

[26]  J. Spaapen,et al.  Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment , 2011 .

[27]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[28]  Rizal Setya Perdana.  What is Twitter , 2013 .

[29]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services , 2013, PloS one.

[30]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[31]  Tindaro Cicero,et al.  Individual research performance: A proposal for comparing apples to oranges , 2013, J. Informetrics.

[32]  Euan A. Adie,et al.  Altmetric: enriching scholarly content with article‐level discussion and metrics , 2013, Learn. Publ..

[33]  Isabella Peters,et al.  Astrophysicists’ Conversational Connections on Twitter , 2014, PloS one.

[34]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications , 2014, Scientometrics.

[35]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Scientometrics in a changing research landscape , 2014, EMBO reports.

[36]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Is there currently a scientific revolution in Scientometrics? , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[37]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication , 2014, Scientometrics.

[38]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Interpreting "altmetrics": viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories , 2015, ArXiv.

[39]  S. Haustein,et al.  Characterizing Social Media Metrics of Scholarly Papers: The Effect of Document Properties and Collaboration Patterns , 2015, PloS one.

[40]  Timothy D. Bowman,et al.  Differences in personal and professional tweets of scholars , 2015, Aslib J. Inf. Manag..

[41]  S. Rijcke,et al.  Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics , 2015, Nature.

[42]  Rodrigo Costas.  Identifying Twitter audiences: who is tweeting about scientific papers? , 2015 .

[43]  Philippe Larédo,et al.  ASIRPA: A comprehensive theory-based approach to assessing the societal impacts of a research organization , 2015 .

[44]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[45]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Using Altmetrics for Contextualised Mapping of Societal Impact: From Hits to Networks , 2016 .

[46]  Stefanie Haustein,et al.  Grand challenges in altmetrics: heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies , 2016, Scientometrics.

[47]  Cassidy R. Sugimoto,et al.  Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication , 2016 .

[48]  Diana Adler,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 2016 .

[49]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  The unbearable emptiness of tweeting—About journal articles , 2017, PloS one.

[50]  R. Costas,et al.  Beyond the dependencies of altmetrics : conceptualizing ‘ heterogeneous couplings ’ between social media and science , 2017 .

[51]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Automated Analysis of Topic-Actor Networks on Twitter: New approach to the analysis of socio-semantic networks , 2017, ArXiv.

[52]  Maria Liakata,et al.  Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: An assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements , 2017, PloS one.

[53]  María Bordons,et al.  Making visible the invisible through the analysis of acknowledgements in the humanities , 2017, Aslib J. Inf. Manag..

[54]  N. Robinson-García,et al.  Using Altmetrics for Contextualised Mapping of Societal Impact: From Hits to Networks , 2017 .

[55]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[56]  Arlette Jappe,et al.  Does bibliometric research confer legitimacy to research assessment practice? A sociological study of reputational control, 1972-2016 , 2018, PloS one.

[57]  S. Haustein,et al.  Authorship, citations, acknowledgments and visibility in social media: Symbolic capital in the multifaceted reward system of science , 2018 .

[58]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  General discussion of data quality challenges in social media metrics: Extensive comparison of four major altmetric data aggregators , 2018, PloS one.

[59]  Rodrigo Costas.  Towards the social media studies of science: social media metrics, present and future , 2018, ArXiv.

[60]  Carlos Gómez-Rodríguez,et al.  Comparing neural‐ and N‐gram‐based language models for word segmentation , 2018, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[61]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Social media metrics for new research evaluation , 2018, Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators.

[62]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF) , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[63]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  Does the public discuss other topics on climate change than researchers? A comparison of networks based on author keywords and hashtags , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[64]  Stefanie Haustein,et al.  Scholarly Twitter metrics , 2018, Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators.

[65]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Getting to Know Science Tweeters: A Pilot Analysis of South African Twitter Users Tweeting about Research Articles , 2019, Journal of Altmetrics.