Back

Unlocking the microblogging potential for science and medicine

Sarkar, A.; Giros, A.; Mockly, L.; Moore, J.; Moore, A.; Nagareddy, A.; Patel, Y.; Chhugani, K.; Sarwal, V.; Darci-Maher, N.; Chang, Y.; Garmire, L. X.; Bao, R.; Chikhi, R.; Mangul, S.

2022-04-25 scientific communication and education
10.1101/2022.04.22.488804 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Microblogging platform Twitter allows researchers to showcase their work, receive constructive feedback, find jobs, and build scientific collaborations. While existing literature has analyzed the benefits of Twitter in the development and distribution of scientific knowledge, most of the studies only took into account a limited number of researchers, which affected the generalizability of derived results. Our study analyzed the activity of 6,000 biomedical scientists on Twitter using data-driven approaches, a third of whom were female. Furthermore, we estimated that up to a quarter of the members of the scientific community are engaged on Twitter. While the number of male scientists joining the microblogging platform every year has decreased, the number of female scientists has remained roughly the same. Scientists are very selective in who they are following as compared to the general public. We also found that the type of tweets and retweets one posts may affect the number of followers, specifically, that a moderate to high level of professionalism and a high level of positivity is correlated with followers count. Moreover, female scientists send fewer negative tweets as compared to male scientists (31.1% for females and 34.7% for males). Our analysis could provide insights and launch a conversation on the advantages and limitations of using Twitter for disseminating scientific information and engaging in constructive discussion and collaborations within the scientific community.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.