Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The reward and risk of social media for academics

  • Comment
  • Published:

From Nature Reviews Chemistry

View current issue Sign up to alerts

We are three academics who are active on social media. We explore the motivations for and benefits of engaging with social media, as well as its costs and risks. Overall, we believe this engagement to be a net benefit for us, our employers and for wider society.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Key, Q., Ahn, Y.-Y. & Sugimoto, C. R. A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on twitter. PLOS ONE 12, e0175368 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bastian, H. Who’s who on science Twitter and who counts? PLOS BLOGS https://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2017/04/28/whos-who-on-science-twitter-and-who-counts (2017).

  3. Côté, I. M. & Darling, E. S. Scientists on Twitter: preaching to the choir or signing from the rooftops. FACETS 3, 682–694 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gempf, K. L. Announcing the 2019 #RSCPoster Twitter Conference winners. RCS http://blogs.rsc.org/rscpublishing/2018/12/10/rsc-twitter-poster-conference-2019 (2018).

  5. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. ‘My Science Inquiry’ Sixteenth Report of Session 2017–2019. parliament https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmsctech/1716/1716.pdf (2019).

  6. Britton, B. [Tweet]. Twitter https://twitter.com/BMatB/status/1123820553389916165 (1 May 2019).

  7. Jarreau, P. et al. Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists. PLOS ONE 14, e0216625 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mccullagh, E. A. et al. Request a woman scientist: a database for diversifying the public face of science. PLOS Biol. 17, e3000212 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gaston, N. [Tweet]. Twitter https://twitter.com/nicgaston/status/1123437220990472192 (30 Apr 2019).

  10. Hall, N. The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biol. 15, 424 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Barnes, C. The h-index debate: an introduction for librarians. J. Acad. Librariansh. 43, 487–494 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rownland, I. Is it time to bury the h-index? The Bibliomagician https://thebibliomagician.wordpress.com/2018/03/23/is-it-time-to-bury-the-h-index (2018).

  13. Minasny, B. et al. Citations and the h index of soil researchers and journals in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. PeerJ 1, e183 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Malesios, C. C. & Psarakis, S. Comparison of the h-index for different fields of research using bootstrap methodology. Qual. Quant. 48, 521–545 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. University and College Union petitions. University of Leeds statutes: no sackers’ charter. UCU http://speakout.web.ucu.org.uk/university-of-leeds-statutes-no-sackers-charter/ (2018).

  16. Swansea University. Swansea University, social media guidelines. Swansea University https://www.swansea.ac.uk/media/Social%20Media%20Guidelines.pdf (2019).

  17. Grand, A. et al. ”We muddle our way through”: shared and distributed expertise in digital engagement with research. J. Sci. Commun. 15, 1–23 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Crockett, M. J. Moral outrage in the digital age. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 769–771 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chapman, E. [Tweet]. Twitter https://twitter.com/DrEOChapman/status/1126575152412672001 (9 May 2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

B.B. acknowledges funding of his research fellowship from the Royal Academy of Engineering. The authors thank Emma Chapman for insightful discussions, and remind everyone that tweets often contain typographical errors associated with autocorrect. The authors also thank the 40 or so Twitter users who provided reviewer comments, via google docs, prior to publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Materials, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Ben Britton

  2. Department of Earth Sciences & Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Chris Jackson

  3. Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Jessica Wade

Authors
  1. Ben Britton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jessica Wade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ben Britton, Chris Jackson or Jessica Wade.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

B.B., C.J. and J.W. are members of TIGERinSTEMM.

Additional information

Related links

Imperial College London Social Media Guidelines: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/staff/tools-and-reference/web-guide/tools/social-media/

The authors of this article can be found on Twitter: @bmatb, @seis_matters, @jesswade

The Inclusion Group for Equity in Research in STEMM: https://www.tigerinstemm.org/

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Britton, B., Jackson, C. & Wade, J. The reward and risk of social media for academics. Nat Rev Chem 3, 459–461 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-019-0121-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-019-0121-3

  • Springer Nature Limited

Search

Navigation