↓ Skip to main content

A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
11 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1524 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
13 Facebook pages
googleplus
5 Google+ users
reddit
3 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
238 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0175368
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qing Ke, Yong-Yeol Ahn, Cassidy R. Sugimoto

Abstract

Metrics derived from Twitter and other social media-often referred to as altmetrics-are increasingly used to estimate the broader social impacts of scholarship. Such efforts, however, may produce highly misleading results, as the entities that participate in conversations about science on these platforms are largely unknown. For instance, if altmetric activities are generated mainly by scientists, does it really capture broader social impacts of science? Here we present a systematic approach to identifying and analyzing scientists on Twitter. Our method can identify scientists across many disciplines, without relying on external bibliographic data, and be easily adapted to identify other stakeholder groups in science. We investigate the demographics, sharing behaviors, and interconnectivity of the identified scientists. We find that Twitter has been employed by scholars across the disciplinary spectrum, with an over-representation of social and computer and information scientists; under-representation of mathematical, physical, and life scientists; and a better representation of women compared to scholarly publishing. Analysis of the sharing of URLs reveals a distinct imprint of scholarly sites, yet only a small fraction of shared URLs are science-related. We find an assortative mixing with respect to disciplines in the networks between scientists, suggesting the maintenance of disciplinary walls in social media. Our work contributes to the literature both methodologically and conceptually-we provide new methods for disambiguating and identifying particular actors on social media and describing the behaviors of scientists, thus providing foundational information for the construction and use of indicators on the basis of social media metrics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,524 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Netherlands 3 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 224 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 16%
Researcher 36 15%
Student > Bachelor 24 10%
Student > Master 23 10%
Other 16 7%
Other 54 23%
Unknown 48 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 57 24%
Computer Science 24 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 6%
Engineering 10 4%
Other 60 25%
Unknown 58 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1105. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2023.
All research outputs
#14,082
of 25,928,676 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#205
of 226,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231
of 327,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4
of 4,606 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,928,676 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 226,364 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,826 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,606 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.