This study examines the social media uptake of scientific journals on two different platforms – X and WeChat – by comparing the adoption of X among journals indexed in the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCIE) with the adoption of WeChat among journals indexed in the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD). The findings reveal substantial differences in platform adoption and user engagement, shaped by local contexts. While only 22.7% of SCIE journals maintain an X account, 84.4% of CSCD journals have a WeChat official account. Journals in Life Sciences & Biomedicine lead in uptake on both platforms, whereas those in Technology and Physical Sciences show high WeChat uptake but comparatively lower presence on X. User engagement on both platforms is dominated by low-effort interactions rather than more conversational behaviours. Correlation analyses indicate weak-to-moderate relationships between bibliometric indicators and social media metrics, confirming that online engagement reflects a distinct dimension of journal impact, whether on an international or a local platform. These findings underscore the need for broader social media metric frameworks that incorporate locally dominant platforms, thereby offering a more comprehensive understanding of science communication practices across diverse social media and contexts.
BrossardDScheufeleDA. Science, new media, and the public. Science2013; 339: 40–41.
2.
DaviesSRHaraN. Public science in a wired world: how online media are shaping science communication. Science Commun2017; 39: 563–568.
3.
OsterriederA. The value and use of social media as communication tool in the plant sciences. Plant Methods2013; 9: 26.
4.
PriemJ. Beyond the paper. Nature2013; 495: 437–440.
5.
AdieERoeW. Altmetric: enriching scholarly content with article-level discussion and metrics. Learn Publish2013; 26: 11–17.
6.
PriemJHemmingerBM. Scientometrics 2.0: toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday 2010; 15: 7.
7.
HausteinSBowmanTDCostasR. Interpreting ‘altmetrics’: viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories. In: SugimotoCR (ed.) Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016, pp. 372–405.
8.
BornmannL. Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. J Inform2014; 8: 895–903.
9.
ThelwallMHausteinSLarivièreV, et al. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE2013; 8: e64841.
10.
WoutersPZahediZCostasR. Social media metrics for new research evaluation. In: GlänzelWMoedHFSchmochU, et al. (eds) Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Cham: Springer, pp. 687–713.
11.
Díaz-FaesAABowmanTDCostasR. Towards a second generation of ‘social media metrics’: characterizing Twitter communities of attention around science. PLoS ONE2019; 14: e0216408.
12.
PriemJTaraborelliDGrothP, et al. Altmetrics: a manifesto. Available at: http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/ (2010, accessed 12 January 2023)
13.
ThelwallM. Measuring societal impacts of research with altmetrics? Common problems and mistakes. J Economic Surv2021; 35: 1302–1314.
14.
DambanemuyaHKAbhariRVincentN, et al. Online engagement with retracted articles: who, when, and how? Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.04228 (2024, accessed 8 February 2024).
15.
DidegahFMejlgaardNSørensenMP. Investigating the quality of interactions and public engagement around scientific papers on Twitter. J Inform2018; 12: 960–971.
16.
MohammadiEBarahmandNThelwallM. Who shares health and medical scholarly articles on Facebook?Learn Publish2020; 33: 111–118.
17.
TsouABowmanTGhazinejadA, et al. Who tweets about science? In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Istanbul, 29 June–3 July, pp. 95–100.
18.
VainioJHolmbergK. Highly tweeted science articles: who tweets them? An analysis of Twitter user profile descriptions. Scientometrics2017; 112: 345–366.
19.
ZhangLGouZFangZ, et al. Who tweets scientific publications? A large-scale study of tweeting audiences in all areas of research. J Assoc Inform Sci Tech2023; 74: 1485–1497.
20.
YuHXiaoTXuS, et al. Who posts scientific tweets? An investigation into the productivity, locations, and identities of scientific tweeters. J Inform2019; 13: 841–855.
21.
MohammadiEThelwallMKwasnyM, et al. Academic information on Twitter: a user survey. PLoS ONE2018; 13: e0197265.
22.
CostasRMongeonPFerreiraMR, et al. Large-scale identification and characterization of scholars on Twitter. Quant Science Stud2020; 1: 771–791.
23.
KeQAhnY-YSugimotoCR. A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter. PLoS ONE2017; 12: e0175368.
24.
MongeonPBowmanTDCostasR. An open data set of scholars on Twitter. Quant Sci Stud2023; 4: 314–324.
25.
Van NoordenR. Online collaboration: scientists and the social network. Nature News2014; 512: 126.
26.
GreenwoodG. Examining the presence of social media on university web sites. J Coll Admis2012; 216: 24–28.
27.
StuartEStuartDThelwallM. An investigation of the online presence of UK universities on Instagram. Online Inform Rev2017; 41: 582–597.
28.
CongTFangZCostasR. WeChat uptake of Chinese scholarly journals: an analysis of CSSCI-indexed journals. Scientometrics2022; 127: 7091–7110.
29.
Nishikawa-PacherA. The Twitter accounts of scientific journals: a dataset. Insights2023; 36: 1.
30.
ZhengHAungHHErdtM, et al. Social media presence of scholarly journals. J Assoc Inform Sci Tech2019; 70: 256–270.
31.
WangYZuccalaA. Scholarly book publishers as publicity agents for SSH titles on Twitter. Scientometrics2021; 126: 4817–4840.
32.
ZeddaMBarbaroA. Adoption of web 2.0 tools among STM publishers. How Social Are Scientific Journals?J EAHIL2015; 11: 9–12.
33.
Arroyo-MachadoWHerrera-ViedmaETorres-SalinasD. The botization of science?Large-scale study of the presence and impact of twitter bots in science dissemination, http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.12741 (2023, accessed 19 November 2024).
34.
CollinsKShiffmanDRockJ. How are scientists using social media in the workplace?PLoS ONE2016; 11: e0162680.
35.
HausteinSPetersIBar-IlanJ, et al. Coverage and adoption of altmetrics sources in the bibliometric community. Scientometrics2014; 101: 1145–1163.
36.
HowoldtDKrollHNeuhäuslerP, et al. Understanding researchers’ twitter uptake, activity and popularity – an analysis of applied research in Germany. Scientometrics2023; 128: 325–344.
37.
CuiYFangZWangX. Article promotion on Twitter and Facebook: a case study of Cell journal. J Inform Sci2023; 49: 1218–1228.
38.
LopezMChanTMThomaB, et al. The social media editor at medical journals: responsibilities, goals, barriers, and facilitators. Acad Med2019; 94: 701–707.
39.
NasonGJO’KellyFKellyME, et al. The emerging use of twitter by urological journals. BJU Int2014; 115: 486–490.
40.
BoulosMNKAndersonPF. Preliminary survey of leading general medicine journals’ use of facebook and twitter. J Canad Health Libr Assoc2012; 33: 38–47.
41.
AmirMSampsonBPEndlyD, et al. Social networking sites: emerging and essential tools for communication in dermatology. JAMA Dermatol2014; 150: 56–60.
42.
Cascón-KatchadourianJGuallarJArtigasW. Social media analysis of high-impact information and communication journals: adoption, use, and content curation. Publications2025; 13: 5.
43.
KortelainenTKatvalaM. ‘Everything is plentiful – except attention’. Attention data of scientific journals on social web tools. J Inform2012; 6: 661–668.
44.
YuHXuSXiaoT, et al. Global science discussed in local altmetrics: Weibo and its comparison with Twitter. J Inform2017; 11: 466–482.
45.
ArtigasWGuallarJ. Curación de contenidos científicos en medios sociales de revistas iberoAmericanas de comunicación. Revista De Comunicación2022; 21: 15–32.
46.
Cascón-KatchadourianJArtigasWGuallarJ. Cura de continguts en les xarxes socials de revistes d’informació i documentació d’iberoamèrica. Bid: Textos Universitaris De Biblioteconomia I Documentació, 2023, https://bid.ub.edu/51/cascon.htm
47.
JinBWangB. Chinese science citation database: its construction and application. Scientometrics1999; 45: 325–332.
48.
LeydesdorffLJinB. Mapping the Chinese science citation database in terms of aggregated journal–journal citation relations. J Am Soc Inform Sci Tech2005; 56: 1469–1479.
49.
RousseauRJinBYangN. Observations concerning the two- and three-year synchronous impact factor, based on the Chinese science citation database. J Document2001; 57: 349–357.
50.
WangYChenBZhaoL, et al. Research data policies of journals in the Chinese science citation database based on the language, publisher, discipline, access model and metrics. Learned Publish2022; 35: 30–45.
51.
HarwitE. WeChat: social and political development of China’s dominant messaging app. Chin J Commun2017; 10: 312–327.
52.
MontagCBeckerBGanC. The multipurpose application WeChat: a review on recent research. Front Psychol2018; 9: 2247.
53.
ZhangXWenDLiangJ, et al. How the public uses social media WeChat to obtain health information in China: a survey study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak2017; 17: 71–79.
54.
MallapatyS. ‘A place of joy’: why scientists are joining the rush to Bluesky. Nature2024; 636: 15–16.
Vidal ValeroM. Thousands of scientists are cutting back on Twitter, seeding angst and uncertainty. Nature2023; 620: 482–484.
57.
CostasRZahediZWoutersP. Do ‘altmetrics’ correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of Altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. J Assoc Inform Sci Tech2015; 66: 2003–2019.
58.
HausteinSPetersISugimotoCR, et al. Tweeting biomedicine: an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. J Assoc Inform Sci Tech2014; 65: 656–669.
59.
WangXDengYLüX, et al. The usage of WeChat to promote academic publishing in China: a case study on Chinese laser press. Learn Publish2020; 33: 187–191.
60.
ZhaoRWeiM. Academic impact evaluation of Wechat in view of social media perspective. Scientometrics2017; 112: 1777–1791.
61.
FangZCostasRWoutersP. User engagement with scholarly tweets of scientific papers: a large-scale and cross-disciplinary analysis. Scientometrics2022; 127: 4523–4546.
62.
ZahediZCostasRWoutersP. How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publications. Scientometrics2014; 101: 1491–1513.
63.
BornmannL. What do altmetrics counts mean? A plea for content analyses. J Assoc Inform Sci Tech2016; 67: 1016–1017.
64.
KahleKSharonAJBaram-TsabariA. Footprints of fascination: digital traces of public engagement with particle physics on CERN’s social media platforms. PLoS ONE2016; 11: e0156409.
65.
KupferschmidtK. Researchers and scientific institutions flock to Bluesky. Science2024; 386: 950–951.
