Do you cite what you tweet? Investigating the relationship between tweeting and citing research articles

The last decade of altmetrics research has demonstrated that altmetrics have a low to moderate correlation with citations, depending on the platform and the discipline, among other factors. Most past studies used academic works as their unit of analysis to determine whether the attention they received on Twitter was a good predictor of academic engagement. Our work revisits the relationship between tweets and citations where the tweet itself is the unit of analysis, and the question is to determine if, at the individual level, the act of tweeting an academic work can shed light on the likelihood of the act of citing that same work. We model this relationship by considering the research activity of the tweeter and its relationship to the tweeted work. Results show that tweeters are more likely to cite works affiliated with their same institution, works published in journals in which they also have published, and works in which they hold authorship. It finds that the older the academic age of a tweeter the less likely they are to cite what they tweet, though there is a positive relationship between citations and the number of works they have published and references they have accumulated over time

Evaluation of the Correlation between Altmetric Attention Score and Citation Number of Top 50 Articles in Orthopedics

The altmetric Attention Score scale quantifies the attention that publications receive on various social media. Some studies have been conducted on the correlation between AAS and citations of articles in other disciplines but orthopedics. This study aimed to compare AAS with citation numbers on the top 50 articles regarding citation numbers. For this study the Scopus database was searched for the most 50 cited manuscripts on orthopedics from January 2015 to December 2020. Subsequently, altimetric attention score (AAS) and the number of Tweeters, Dimensions, etc, were retrieved for each article through "Bookmarklet for Researchers" at Altmetric.com. Results show a statistically low and non-significant relationship was indicated between the citation number and the AAS and also shown the linear relationship between the mention on Twitter and the altmetric attention score.  Most of previous articles represented that there is a weak to moderate relationship between the citation number and the AAS that is similar to our findings. There is a low but significant correlation exists between the AAS and the number of citations. In addition, the AAS is directly and linearly linked to the number of mentions on Twitter

On the differences between citations and altmetrics: An investigation of factors driving altmetrics vs. citations for Finnish Articles

This study examines a range of factors associating with future citation and altmetric counts to a paper. The factors include journal impact factor, individual collaboration, international collaboration, institution prestige, country prestige, research funding, abstract readability, abstract length, title length, number of cited references, field size, and field type and will be modelled in association with citation counts, Mendeley readers, Twitter posts, Facebook posts, blog posts, and news posts. The results demonstrate that eight factors are important for increased citation counts, seven different factors are important for increased Mendeley readers, eight factors are important for increased Twitter posts, three factors are important for increased Facebook posts, six factors are important for increased blog posts, and five factors are important for increased news posts. Journal impact factor and international collaboration are the two factors that significantly associate with increased citation counts and with all altmetric scores. Moreover, it seems that the factors driving Mendeley readership are similar to those driving citation counts. However, the altmetric events differ from each other in terms of a small number of factors; for instance, institution prestige and country prestige associate with increased Mendeley readers and blog and news posts, but it is an insignificant factor for Twitter and Facebook posts. The findings contribute to the continued development of theoretical models and methodological developments associated with capturing, interpreting, and understanding altmetric events. </p

Data Science: A Study from the Scientometric, Curricular, and Altmetric Perspectives

This research explores the emerging field of data science from the scientometric, curricular, and altmetric perspectives and addresses the following six research questions: 1. What are the scientometric features of the data science field? 2. What are the contributing fields to the establishment of data science? 3. What are the major research areas of the data science discipline? 4. What are the salient topics taught in the data science curriculum? 5. What topics appear in the Twitter-sphere regarding data science? 6. What can be learned about data science from the scientometric, curricular, and altmetric analyses of the data collected? Using bibliometric data from the Scopus database for 1983 – 2021, the current study addresses the first three research questions. The fourth research question is answered with curricular data collected from U.S. educational institutions that offer data science programs. Altmetric data was gathered from Twitter for over 20 days to answer the fifth research question. All three sets of data are analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The scientometric portion of this study revealed a growing field, expanding beyond the borders of the United States and the United Kingdom into a more global undertaking. Computer Science and Statistics are foundational contributing fields with a host of additional fields contributing data sets for new data scientists to act, including, for example, the Biomedical and Information Science fields. When it comes to the question of salient topics across all three aspects of this research, it was revealed that a large degree of coherence between the three resulted in highlighting thirteen core topics of data science. However, it can be noted that Artificial Intelligence stood out among all the other groups with leading topics such as Machine Learning, Neural Networks, and Natural Language Processing. The findings of this study not only identify the major parameters of the data science field (e.g., leading researchers, the composition of the discipline) but also reveal its underlying intellectual structure and research fronts. They can help researchers to ascertain emerging topics and research fronts in the field. Educational programs in data science can learn from this study about how to update their curriculums and better prepare students for the rapidly growing field. Practitioners and other stakeholders of data science can also benefit from the present research to stay tuned and current in the field. Furthermore, the triple-pronged approach of this research provides a panoramic view of the data science field that no prior study has ever examined and will have a lasting impact on related investigations of an emerging discipline

Exploiting tweet sentiments in altmetrics large-scale data

This article aims to exploit social exchanges on scientific literature, specifically tweets, to analyse social media users’ sentiments towards publications within a research field. First, we employ the SentiStrength tool, extended with newly created lexicon terms, to classify the sentiments of 6,482,260 tweets associated with 1,083,535 publications provided by Altmetric.com. Then, we propose harmonic means-based statistical measures to generate a specialised lexicon, using positive and negative sentiment scores and frequency metrics. Next, we adopt a novel article-level summarisation approach to domain-level sentiment analysis to gauge the opinion of social media users on Twitter about the scientific literature. Last, we propose and employ an aspect-based analytical approach to mine users’ expressions relating to various aspects of the article, such as tweets on its title, abstract, methodology, conclusion or results section. We show that research communities exhibit dissimilar sentiments towards their respective fields. The analysis of the field-wise distribution of article aspects shows that in Medicine, Economics, Business and Decision Sciences, tweet aspects are focused on the results section. In contrast, in Physics and Astronomy, Materials Sciences and Computer Science, these aspects are focused on the methodology section. Overall, the study helps us to understand the sentiments of online social exchanges of the scientific community on scientific literature. Specifically, such a fine-grained analysis may help research communities in improving their social media exchanges about the scientific articles to disseminate their scientific findings effectively and to further increase their societal impact

Augmented Reality and Health Informatics: A Study based on Bibliometric and Content Analysis of Scholarly Communication and Social Media

Healthcare outcomes have been shown to improve when technology is used as part of patient care. Health Informatics (HI) is a multidisciplinary study of the design, development, adoption, and application of IT-based innovations in healthcare services delivery, management, and planning. Augmented Reality (AR) is an emerging technology that enhances the user’s perception and interaction with the real world. This study aims to illuminate the intersection of the field of AR and HI. The domains of AR and HI by themselves are areas of significant research. However, there is a scarcity of research on augmented reality as it applies to health informatics. Given both scholarly research and social media communication having contributed to the domains of AR and HI, research methodologies of bibliometric and content analysis on scholarly research and social media communication were employed to investigate the salient features and research fronts of the field. The study used Scopus data (7360 scholarly publications) to identify the bibliometric features and to perform content analysis of the identified research. The Altmetric database (an aggregator of data sources) was used to determine the social media communication for this field. The findings from this study included Publication Volumes, Top Authors, Affiliations, Subject Areas and Geographical Locations from scholarly publications as well as from a social media perspective. The highest cited 200 documents were used to determine the research fronts in scholarly publications. Content Analysis techniques were employed on the publication abstracts as a secondary technique to determine the research themes of the field. The study found the research frontiers in the scholarly communication included emerging AR technologies such as tracking and computer vision along with Surgical and Learning applications. There was a commonality between social media and scholarly communication themes from an applications perspective. In addition, social media themes included applications of AR in Healthcare Delivery, Clinical Studies and Mental Disorders. Europe as a geographic region dominates the research field with 50% of the articles and North America and Asia tie for second with 20% each. Publication volumes show a steep upward slope indicating continued research. Social Media communication is still in its infancy in terms of data extraction, however aggregators like Altmetric are helping to enhance the outcomes. The findings from the study revealed that the frontier research in AR has made an impact in the surgical and learning applications of HI and has the potential for other applications as new technologies are adopted

User engagement with scholarly tweets of scientific papers: a large-scale and cross-disciplinary analysis

This study investigates the extent to which scholarly tweets of scientific papers are engaged with by Twitter users through four types of user engagement behaviors, i.e., liking, retweeting, quoting, and replying. Based on a sample consisting of 7 million scholarly tweets of Web of Science papers, our results show that likes is the most prevalent engagement metric, covering 44% of scholarly tweets, followed by retweets (36%), whereas quotes and replies are only present for 9% and 7% of all scholarly tweets, respectively. From a disciplinary point of view, scholarly tweets in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities are more likely to trigger user engagement over other subject fields. The presence of user engagement is more associated with other Twitter-based factors (e.g., number of mentioned users in tweets and number of followers of users) than with science-based factors (e.g., citations and Mendeley readers of tweeted papers). Building on these findings, this study sheds light on the possibility to apply user engagement metrics in measuring deeper levels of Twitter reception of scholarly information.Merit, Expertise and Measuremen

Researchers’ use of social network sites : a scoping review

The study is a scoping review of 80 research articles in LIS and related fields (2004-2014) on the use of social network sites by researchers. The results show that social network sites are used as part of scholarly life, yet with disciplinary differences. It is also shown that the area lacks methodological, theoretical and empirical coherence and theoretical stringency. The most salient strands of research (General uptake, Outreach, Special tools/cases, Assessing impact, Practices/new modes of communication) are mapped and ways to improve research in the field are identified. This provides a first step towards a more comprehensive understanding of the roles of social network sites in scholarship

Mapping networks of influence: tracking Twitter conversations through time and space

The increasing use of social media around global news events, such as the London Olympics in 2012, raises questions for international broadcasters about how to engage with users via social media in order to best achieve their individual missions. Twitter is a highly diverse social network whose conversations are multi-directional involving individual users, political and cultural actors, athletes and a range of media professionals. In so doing, users form networks of influence via their interactions affecting the ways that information is shared about specific global events. This article attempts to understand how networks of influence are formed among Twitter users, and the relative influence of global news media organisations and information providers in the Twittersphere during such global news events. We build an analysis around a set of tweets collected during the 2012 London Olympics. To understand how different users influence the conversations across Twitter, we compare three types of accounts: those belonging to a number of well-known athletes, those belonging to some well-known commentators employed by the BBC, and a number of corporate accounts belonging to the BBC World Service and the official London Twitter account. We look at the data from two perspectives. First, to understand the structure of the social groupings formed among Twitter users, we use a network analysis to model social groupings in the Twittersphere across time and space. Second, to assess the influence of individual tweets, we investigate the ageing factor of tweets, which measures how long users continue to interact with a particular tweet after it is originally posted. We consider what the profile of particular tweets from corporate and athletes’ accounts can tell us about how networks of influence are forged and maintained. We use these analyses to answer the questions: How do different types of accounts help shape the social networks? and, What determines the level and type of influence of a particular account