Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates disciplinary differences in how researchers use the microblogging site Twitter. Tweets from selected researchers in ten disciplines (astrophysics, biochemistry, digital humanities, economics, history of science, cheminformatics, cognitive science, drug discovery, social network analysis, and sociology) were collected and analyzed both statistically and qualitatively. The researchers tended to share more links and retweet more than the average Twitter users in earlier research and there were clear disciplinary differences in how they used Twitter. Biochemists retweeted substantially more than researchers in the other disciplines. Researchers in digital humanities and cognitive science used Twitter more for conversations, while researchers in economics shared the most links. Finally, whilst researchers in biochemistry, astrophysics, cheminformatics and digital humanities seemed to use Twitter for scholarly communication, scientific use of Twitter in economics, sociology and history of science appeared to be marginal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ash, T. G. (2011). Tunisia’s revolution isn’t a product of Twitter or Wikileaks. But they do help. Guardian. Retrieved March 13, 2011 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/19/tunisia-revolution-twitter-facebook

  • Borgman, C. L. (2000). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics revisited. In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge—A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 143–162). Medford: Information Today Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgman, C., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36(1), 2–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, D., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences 2010. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from http://www.danah.org/papers/TweetTweetRetweet.pdf

  • Choi, S., Park, J., & Park, H. W. (2012). Using social media data to explore communication processes within South Korean online innovation communities. Scientometrics, 90, 43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R. (2000). A short history of the use of citations as a measure of the impact of scientific and scholarly work. In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge—A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 281–300). Medford: Information Today Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earle, P. S., Bowden, D. C., & Guy, M. (2011). Twitter earthquake detection: Earthquake monitoring in a social world. Annals of Geophysics, 54(6), 708–715.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ediger, D., Jiang, K., Riedy, J., Bader, D. A., Corley, C., Farber, R., & Reynolds, W. N. (2010). Massive social network analysis: Mining Twitter for social good. In Proceedings of 39th international conference on parallel processing. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~jriedy/paper-copies/ICPP10-GraphCT.pdf

  • Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13, 4. Retrieved on February 9, 2013, from http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e123/

  • Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. ISBN 0-471-26370-2.

  • Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Hershkovitz, A. (2011). A case study of Israeli higher-education institutes sharing scholarly information with the community via social networks. Internet and Higher Education, 15, 58–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golbeck, J., Grimes, J. M., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1612–1621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A. (2011). Tenure and promotion in the age of online social media. In Proceedings of the ASIS&T annual meeting, October 9–12, 2011. New Orleans, USA.

  • Harlow, S., & Johnson, T. J. (2011). Overthrowing the protest paradigm? How the New York Times, Global Voices and Twitter covered the Egyptian revolution. International Journal of Communication, 5, 1359–1374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., & Lariviere, V (2013). Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. doi:10.1002/asi.23101

  • Honeycutt, C., & Herring, S. C. (2009). Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. In Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/honeycutt.herring.2009.pdf

  • Hong, S., & Nadler, D. (2012). Which candidates do the public discuss online in an election campaign? The use of social media by 2012 presidential candidates and its impact on candidate salience. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 455–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., & Wu, F. (2009). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday, 14, 1–5. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2317/2063.

  • Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009). Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(11), 2169–2188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Letierce, J., Passant, A., Breslin, J., & Decker, S. (2010) Understanding how Twitter is used to spread scientific messages. In Proceedings of the WebSci10: Extending the frontiers of society on-line, April 26–27, 2010. Raleigh, NC: US. Retrieve January 11, 2013, from http://journal.webscience.org/314/

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., De Bruin, R. E., & Van Leeuwen, T. N. (1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance—database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33(3), 381–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priem, J., & Costello, K. (2010). How and why scholars cite on Twitter. In Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 47(1), 1–4. doi:10.1002/meet.14504701201.

  • Priem, J., & Hemminger, B.H. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15 (7–5).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, C., Terras, M., Warwick, C., & Welsh, A. (2010). Enabled backchannel: Conference Twitter use by digital humanists. Journal of Documentation, 67(2), 214–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing, 24(3), 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanfeld, D., Scanfeld, M., & Larson, E. L. (2010). Dissemination of health information through social networks: Twitter and antibiotics. American Journal of Infection Control, 38(3), 182–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuai, X., Pepe, A., & Bollen, J. (2012). How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: Article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e47523. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suh, B., Hong, L., Pirolli, P., & Chi, E. H. (2010). Want to be retweeted? Large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in Twitter network. In Proceedings of IEEE international conference on social computing. Retrieved March 1, 2011, from http://web.mac.com/peter.pirolli/Professional/About_Me_files/2010-04-15-retweetability-v18-final.pdf

  • Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. (2013a). Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other candidates. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64841. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., Tsou, A., Weingart, S., Holmberg, K., & Haustein, S (2013b) Tweeting links to academic articles. Cybermetrics, 17(1). http://cybermetrics.cindoc.csic.es/articles/v17i1p1.html.

  • Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. UK: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, K., Dröge, E., & Puschmann, C. (2011). Citation analysis in Twitter: Approaches for defining and measuring information flows within tweets during scientific conferences. In M. Rowe, M. Stankovic, A.-S. Dadzie, & M. Hardey (Eds.), Making sense of microposts (#MSM2011), workshop at extended semantic web conference (ESWC 2011) (pp. 1–12). Greece: Crete.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller, K., & Puschmann, C. (2011). Twitter for scientific communication: How can citations/references be identified and measured? In Proceedings of the poster session at the web science conference 2011 (WebSci11), Koblenz, Germany. Retrieved January 17, 2013, from http://journal.webscience.org/500/1/153_paper.pdf

  • Wishart, D. S. (2007). Introduction to cheminformatics. Current protocols in bioinformatics, chapter 14, unit 14.1.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Digging into Data international funding initiative through Jisc in the United Kingdom. Parts of the results were presented at the 14th International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics conference 2013, in Vienna, Austria, and at the ASIS&T European Workshop 2013, in Turku, Finland. Thank you to Andrew Tsou for help with coding the tweets.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton, WV1 1LY, UK

    Kim Holmberg & Mike Thelwall

Authors
  1. Kim Holmberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mike Thelwall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim Holmberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holmberg, K., Thelwall, M. Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics 101, 1027–1042 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation