Back

Twitter and Mastodon presence of highly-cited scientists

Siebert, M.; Siena, L. M.; Ioannidis, J. P. A.

2023-04-24 scientific communication and education
10.1101/2023.04.23.537950 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Social media platforms have an increasing influence in biomedical and other disciplines of science and public health. While Twitter has been a popular platform for scientific communication, changes in ownership have led some users to consider migrating to other platforms such as Mastodon. We aimed to investigate how many top-cited scientists are active on these social media platforms, the magnitude of the migration to Mastodon, and correlates of Twitter presence. A random sample of 900 authors was examined among those who are at the top-2% of impact based on a previously validated composite citation indicator using Scopus data. Searches for their personal Twitter accounts were performed in early December 2022, and re-evaluations were performed at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 2 months (February 6, 2023). 262/900 (29.1%) of highly-cited scholars had Twitter accounts, and only 9/800 (1%) had Mastodon accounts. Female gender, North American and Australia locations, younger publication age, and clinical medicine or social science expertise correlated with higher percentages of Twitter use. The vast majority of highly-cited author users of Twitter had few followers and tweets. Only 6 had more than 10,000 followers and none had more than 100,000. One limitation of our study is that it is possible that some accounts, especially with Mastodon, could not be detected. However, the study suggests that Twitter remains the preferred social media platform for highly-cited authors, and Mastodon has not yet challenged Twitters dominance. Moreover, most highly-cited scientists with Twitter accounts have limited presence in this medium.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
28.8%
2
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.9%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.7%
4
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
6.6%
6
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.1%
7
FACETS
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
8
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.2%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 52%
2.0%
10
FEBS Letters
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
11
The FEBS Journal
78 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
12
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
13
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.3%
14
Journal of Cellular Physiology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
15
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
16
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
17
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
18
FASEB BioAdvances
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
19
FEBS Open Bio
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
20
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
Stem Cell Research
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
22
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 43%
0.8%
23
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
171 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
24
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
25
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
26
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%