The growing presence of research shared on social media, coupled with the increase in freely available research, invites us to ask whether scientific articles shared on platforms like Twitter diffuse beyond the academic community. We explore a new method for answering this question by identifying 11 articles from two open access biology journals that were shared on Twitter at least 50 times and by analyzing the follower network of users who tweeted each article. We find that diffusion patterns of scientific articles can take very different forms, even when the number of times they are tweeted is similar. Our small case study suggests that most articles are shared within single-connected communities with limited diffusion to the public. The proposed approach and indicators can serve those interested in the public understanding of science, science communication, or research evaluation to identify when research diffuses beyond insular communities.
BornmannL (2014a) Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics8(4): 895–903. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157714000868 (accessed 3 October 2014).
5.
BornmannL (2014b) Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime. Journal of Informetrics8(4): 935–950. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157714000881 (accessed 20 October 2014).
boydDGolderSLotanG (2010) Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. In: 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp. 1–10, IEEE. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5428313/ (accessed 12 August 2017).
8.
BrossardD (2013) New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110(Suppl. 3): 14096–14101. Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/Supplement_3/14096.short (accessed 23 November 2017).
9.
BrossardDScheufeleDA (2013) Social science: Science, new media, and the public. Science339(6115): 40–41. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23288529 (accessed 23 November 2017).
CostasRZahediZWoutersP (2014) Do Altmetrics Correlate with Citations? Extensive Comparison of Altmetric Indicators with Citations from a Multidisciplinary Perspective: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Leiden: Digital Libraries. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/asi.23309 (accessed 22 January 2014).
13.
CostasRZahediZWoutersP (2015) The thematic orientation of publications mentioned on social media. Aslib Journal of Information Management (eds HausteinSCassidyRSuD) 67(3): 260–288. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0173 (accessed 12 August 2017).
14.
De Solla PriceDJ (1965) Little Science, Big Science and Beyond. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
15.
EysenbachG (2011) Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research13(4): e123. Available at: http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e123/ (accessed 27 February 2014).
16.
FleckL (1935) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
HammarfeltB (2014) Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics101(2): 1419–1430. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-014-1261-3 (accessed 30 May 2014).
23.
HausteinS (forthcoming) Scholarly Twitter metrics. In: GlaenzelWMoedHFSchmochUetal. (eds) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research. Berlin: Springer.
24.
HausteinSBowmanTDCostasR (2016) 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 Mouton, pp. 372–405. Available at: https://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110308464/9783110308464-022/9783110308464-022.xml (accessed 18 August 2015).
25.
HausteinSCostasRLarivièreVet al. (2015) Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS ONE10(3): e0120495. Available at: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120495 (accessed 12 August 2017).
26.
HausteinSTsouAMinikVet al. (2016) Identifying Twitter user communities in the context of altmetrics. In: Rd altmetrics conference, 28–29 September, Bucharest.
27.
KeQAhnY-YSugimotoCR (2017) A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter. PLoS ONE (ed. BornmannL) 12(4): e0175368. Available at: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175368 (accessed 23 November 2017).
LetierceJPassantADeckerSet al. (2010) Understanding how Twitter is used to spread scientific messages. In: Proceedings of the Websci10: extending the Frontiers of Society On-line, Raleigh, NC. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c9d5/d81311973b22f6b18a7f050ee976fef74dfb.pdf (accessed 12 August 2017).
30.
LeydesdorffLWagnerCS (2008) Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system. Scientometrics78(1): 23–36. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s11192-008-1830-4 (accessed 26 July 2012).
MoodyJ (2004) The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review69(2): 213–238. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000312240406900204 (accessed 12 August 2017).
33.
MyersSALeskovecJ (2014) The bursty dynamics of the Twitter information network. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World Wide Web—WWW ’14, pp. 913–924, New York, NY: ACM Press. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2566486.2568043 (accessed 7 August 2017).
34.
MyersTAKotcherJStenhouseNet al. (2017) Predictors of trust in the general science and climate science research of US federal agencies. Public Understanding of Science26(7): 843–860. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963662516636040 (accessed 27 November 2017).
35.
NewmanTP (2017) Tracking the release of IPCC AR5 on Twitter: Users, comments, and sources following the release of the working group I summary for policymakers. Public Understanding of Science26(7): 815–825. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963662516628477 (accessed 26 January 2018).
36.
NielsenMA (2012) Reinventing Discovery the New Era of Networked Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
NisbetMCFahyD (2015) The need for knowledge-based journalism in politicized science debates. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (eds SuhayEDruckmanJN) 658(1): 223–234. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716214559887 (accessed 23 November 2017).
PiwowarHPriemJLarivièreVet al. (2017) The state of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. Peerj Preprints. Available at: https://peerj.com/preprints/3119/ (accessed 12 August 2017).
40.
PriemJCostelloKL (2010) How and why scholars cite on Twitter. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology47(1): 1–4. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/meet.14504701201 (accessed 12 August 2017).
41.
Robinson-GarciaNvan LeeuwenTNRafolsI (2017) Using almetrics for contextualised mapping of societal impact: From hits to networks. Science and Public Policy. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2932944 (accessed 12 August 2017).
42.
RowlandsINicholasDRussellBet al. (2011) Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing24(3): 183–195. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1087/20110306 (accessed 12 August 2017).
43.
ScottJ (2017) Social Network Analysis. UK: SAGE.
44.
ShuaiXPepeABollenJ (2012) How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: Article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS ONE (ed. OuzounisCA). 7(11): e47523. Available at: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047523 (accessed 21 January 2014).
45.
SugimotoCRWorkSLarivièreVet al. (2017) Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology68: 2037–2062.
46.
ThelwallMHausteinSLarivièreVet al. (2013) Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE8(5): e64841. Available at: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064841 (accessed 21 January 2014)
47.
TsouABowmanTDGhazinejadAet al. (2015) Who tweets about science? In: Proceedings of the 2015 international society for scientometrics and informetrics, 29 June – 3 July, Istanbul, pp. 95–100.
48.
Van NoordenR (2014) Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature512(7513): 126–129. Available at: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/512126a (accessed 12 August 2017).
49.
VeletsianosG (2016) Social Media in Academia: Networked Scholars. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
50.
VragaEKThorsonKKligler-VilenchikNet al. (2015) How individual sensitivities to disagreement shape youth political expression on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior45: 281–289. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563214007419 (accessed 23 November 2017).
51.
WagnerCSLeydesdorffL (2005) Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy34(10): 1608–1618. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048733305001745 (accessed 26 July 2012).
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
