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.
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.
Similar papers in this journal
- Insights into the Datasets, Tools, and Training Needs of the AnVIL Community: 2024 92%
- A cross-sectional audit and survey of Open Science and Data Sharing practices at The Montreal Neurological Institute-Hospital 91%
- Inflated citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: the GhoS(t)copus Project 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Twitter and Census Data Analytics to Explore Socioeconomic Factors for Post-COVID-19 Reopening Sentiment 93%
- Research productivity and collaboration of the NIH-funded HIV Vaccine Trials Network: a bibliometric analysis 90%
- Cloud-controlled microscopy enables remote project-based biology education in Latinx communities in the United States and Latin America 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Controlled experiment finds no detectable citation bump from Twitter promotion 94%
- Motivations, concerns and selection biases when posting preprints: a survey of bioRxiv authors 94%
- Can scientists fill the science journalism void? Online public engagement with science stories authored by scientists 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Researcher and Clinician Preferences for a Journal Transparency Tool: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study 91%
- Comparing protein-protein interaction networks of SARS-CoV-2 and (H1N1) influenza using topological features 90%
- OxCOVID19 Database: a multimodal data repository for better understanding the global impact of COVID-19 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Diversity and inclusion: A hidden additional benefit of Open Data 93%
- Use of large language models as a scalable approach to understanding public health discourse 92%
- Inferring Gender from First Names: Comparing the Accuracy of Genderize, Gender API, and the gender R Package on Authors of Diverse Nationality 91%
"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.