Investigating the quality of interactions and public engagement around scientific papers on Twitter

Abstract This study explores science communication on Twitter by investigating a sample of tweets referring to academic papers in five different scientific fields. The specifications of science communicators on Twitter, the characteristics of those who initiate actions (by tweeting), the extent and quality of reactions (retweeting), individual and group interactions, and the distribution of tweets across types of engagement in the process of science communication (i.e., dissemination, consultation, and evaluation) were explored. A broad array of actors is involved in the communication of science on Twitter, with individual citizens and individual researchers playing an important role. In principle, this is promising for creating direct interaction, which can be difficult through more traditional mass media. The vast majority of communication activities regarding academic papers is undigested dissemination with almost no sign of debate, contestation, or collective reflection. Another general finding of this study is that bot accounts play a major role in the science communication landscape on Twitter.

[1]  Ian Rowlands,et al.  Social media use in the research workflow , 2011 .

[2]  Bradley M. Hemminger,et al.  Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web , 2010, First Monday.

[3]  Adam Marcus,et al.  Science publishing: The paper is not sacred , 2011, Nature.

[4]  Jian-min Zhang,et al.  Structural and electronic properties of chiral single-wall copper nanotubes , 2014 .

[5]  Ali Ghazinejad,et al.  Who Tweets about Science? , 2015, ISSI.

[6]  Kim Holmberg,et al.  Highly tweeted science articles: who tweets them? An analysis of Twitter user profile descriptions , 2017, Scientometrics.

[7]  Jin-Cheon Na User Motivations for Tweeting Research Articles: A Content Analysis Approach , 2015, ICADL.

[8]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management , 2015 .

[9]  Science and the Social Media in an African Context , 2015 .

[10]  Dominique Brossard,et al.  Building Buzz , 2014 .

[11]  Houqiang Yu,et al.  Context of altmetrics data matters: an investigation of count type and user category , 2017, Scientometrics.

[12]  Anne E. Lincoln,et al.  Narratives of Science Outreach in Elite Contexts of Academic Science , 2014 .

[13]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[14]  A. Hershkovitz,et al.  A case study of Israeli higher-education institutes sharing scholarly information with the community via social networks , 2012, Internet High. Educ..

[15]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Tweeting Links to Academic Articles , 2013 .

[16]  Haustein Stefanie,et al.  Identifying Twitter user communities , 2016 .

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

[18]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..