Who shares scholarly output on Facebook? A systematic investigation into their location,productivity and identities

Abstract

Facebook mentions to scholarly outputs are important data source for scholarly communication and altmetrics. However, little is known about who are producing these mentions. With statistical analysis of over 1.5 million records, this study has revealed scientific Facebook users’ geographic distribution and productivity distribution. Furthermore, via coding analysis based on random sampling strategy and stratified sampling strategy, their identities are recognised and classified in a systematic way. Results show the following. (1) Scientific Facebook users are widely distributed around the world but highly concentrated, presenting a different pattern compared with general Facebook users. (2) Productivity distribution is highly skewed towards the lowly productive scientific Facebook users. (3) Identities of scientific Facebook users are very diversified, and are proposed to be classified into 6 basic types and 30 specific types, verifying that various stakeholders other than scholars are engaged with scholarly outputs on Facebook. (4) Organisational scientific Facebook users (percentage > 80%) are dominant. Meanwhile, public users (percentage = 55%) have surpassed researcher users (percentage = 32%) as the major type. Among public users, various business organisations (percentage = 26%) and social organisations (percentage = 19%) are playing an important role. (5) Level of activeness has strong connection with users’ identities. There is clear increasing pattern regarding percentage of public users with decreasing level of activeness. These results indicate that Facebook mentions can measure interactions with scholarly outputs from much broader categories of users other than scholars and user’s context information needs to be considered when using Facebook mention counts for evaluative purpose.

Keywords

Altmetrics Facebook mentions identity distribution productivity distribution scientific Facebook users

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Fenner

. Altmetrics and other novel measures for scientific impact. In Bartling

Friesike

(eds) Opening science: the evolving guide on how the internet is changing research. London: Collaboration and Scholarly, 2014, pp. 179–189.

Bornmann

. What is social impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature surveys. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 2013; 4(2): 217–233.

Nentwich

König

. Academia goes Facebook? The potential of social network sites in the scholarly realm. In: Bartling

Friesike

(eds) Opening science. Cham: Springer, 2014, pp. 107–124.

Bowman

. Investigating the use of affordances and framing techniques by scholars to manage personal and professional impressions on twitter. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, 2015.

Madhusudhan

. Use of social networking sites by research scholars of the University of Delhi: a study. Int Inform Lib Rev 2012; 44(2): 100–113.

Moran

Seaman

Tinti-Kane

. Teaching, learning, and sharing: how today’s higher education faculty use social media. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2011, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535130

Bornmann

Haunschild

. Normalization of zero-inflated data: an empirical analysis of a new indicator family and its use with altmetrics data. J Inform 2018; 12(3): 998–1011.

Mohammadi

Gregory

Thelwall

, et al. Which health and biomedical topics generate the most Facebook interest and the strongest citation relationships? Inform Process Manage 2020; 57(3)102230.

Sud

Thelwall

. Evaluating altmetrics. Scientometrics 2014; 98(2): 1131–1143.

10.

Puschmann

Mahrt

. Scholarly blogging: a new form of publishing or science journalism 2.0. In: Science and the internet, 2012, pp. 171–181. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/229590878.pdf

11.

Green

Bailey

. Academic uses of Facebook: endless possibilities or endless perils? IEEE Eng Manage Rev 2010; 38(3): 35–37.

12.

Mohammadi

Thelwall

Haustein

, et al. Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol 2015; 66(9): 1832–1846.

13.

. Context of altmetrics data matters: an investigation of count type and user category. Scientometrics 2017; 111(1): 267–283.

14.

Mohammadi

Thelwall

Kwasny

, et al. Academic information on twitter: a user survey. PLoS ONE 2018; 13(5): e0197265.

15.

Costas

Mongeon

Ferreira

, et al. Large-scale identification and characterization of scholars on Twitter. Quant Sci Stud 2020; 1(2): 771–791.

16.

. Content analysis of scholarly discussions of psychological academic articles on Facebook. Online Inform Rev 2017; 41(3): 337–353.

17.

Mohammadi

Barahmand

Thelwall

. Who shares health and medical scholarly articles on Facebook? Learn Publish 2020; 33(2): 111–118.

18.

Xiao

, et al. Who posts scientific tweets? An investigation into the productivity, locations, and identities of scientific tweeters. J Informetr 2019; 13(3): 841–855.

19.

Zhang

Cao

. Study on distribution features of Facebook altmetrics of scholarly outputs. J China Soc Inform Sci Technol 2021; 40(10): 1079–1091.

20.

Yoo

Homero

. Connecting blog, twitter and Facebook use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Commun Soc 2014; 27(4): 33–48.

21.

Bornmann

Williams

. An evaluation of percentile measures of citation impact, and a proposal for making them better. Scientometrics 2020; 124: 1457–1478.