Disciplinary Differences in Selected Scholars' Twitter Transmissions

Disciplinary Differences in Selected Scholars'

Twitter TransmissionsKim Holmberg1 and Mike Thelwall2

1 k.holmberg@wlv.ac.uk, http://kimholmberg.fi | 2 m.thelwall@wlv.ac.uk School of Technology, University of Wolverhampton, UK

AEW 5/6/13

Cascades, Islands, or Streams? Time, Topic, and Scholarly Activities in

Humanities and Social Science Research

Indiana University, Bloomington, USAUniversity of Wolverhampton, UKUniversité de Montréal, Canada

Cascades, Islands, or Streams? Integrate several datasets representing a broad range of scholarly activities

Use methodological and data triangulation to explore the lifecycle of topics within and across a range of scholarly activities

Develop transparent tools and techniques to enable future predictive analyses

#Altmetrics is the study and use of non-traditional scholarly impact measures that are based on activity in web-based environments.

http://www.ploscollections.org/article/browse/issue/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fissue.pcol.v02.i19;jsessionid=70DF7B9AD8D7CE819F666E7791D4084E

RQThis research investigates how researchers in different disciplines use Twitter for scholarly communication with the following research questions:1. How are researchers in different disciplines using

Twitter for scholarly communication?2. What kinds of disciplinary differences are there in

the use of Twitter for scholarly communication?

TweetRetweet or RT@usernameMessage (privat)#Hashtag

Discipline Researchers Tweets1 Tweets per researcher

Cheminformatics 48 81,836 1,705

Cognitive science 52 50,128 964

Drug discovery 24 18,293 762

Social network analysis 47 41,464 882

Sociology 48 64,447 1,371

Data was collected between 4 March 2012 and 16 October 2012 using Twitter’s API.

DATA

1) Twitter restricts the collection of tweets sent by users to approx. 3,200 tweets

METHODSFrom each discipline a random sample of 200 tweets was selected and these were classified using a multifaceted classification scheme.

In facet 1 the communication style was classified and in facet 2 the scientific content, or lack of it, was classified.

FACET 1communication style• Retweets were identified by the acronym RT or by some other

way that clearly indicated that the tweet was at least a partial copy of a previous tweet.

• Conversational tweets were identified by @-sign followed by a username and were not retweets.

• Tweets in the Links category were tweets that were neither retweets nor conversational tweets but contained one or more URLs.

• Other- all remaining tweets.

FACET 2content • The scholarly communication category contained tweets that

were clearly about research-related communication. • Discipline-relevant tweets were clearly about disciplinary

communication not directly research related. • Not clear was for tweets with no clear topic. The topic of the

tweets and the scientific content were unclear. • Not about science and not about the discipline. Tweets

irrelevant to the discipline and research.

RESULTS

Figure 1. Communication styles of the tweets in the five different disciplines

RESULTS

Figure 2. Scientific content of the tweets in the five different disciplines

RESULTS

Figure 3. Scientific content of the tweets by communication type

LIMITATIONS

• Tweets were classified by only one researcher. While facet 1 is fairly straightforward, facet 2 was classified

conservatively so that clear evidence was needed for the more scholarly categories1.

• The sample is based upon 24-52 researchers per discipline The disciplinary differences found may be due to the

sample of researchers rather than their disciplines. • It may be easier to classify tweets in some disciplines

Some disciplines have more specialist vocabularies (e.g., chemoinformatics) and others discuss issues that are of general interest to society (e.g., sociology).

1) In another sample with other disciplines, intercoder agreement in facet 1 was 99.2% and in facet 2 68.9% with Cohen’s Kappa 0.587.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggests that there may be significant differences between disciplines in the extent to which their active users use Twitter for scholarly communication.

It seems to be worrying that some disciplines are avoiding Twitter almost completely for scholarly communication despite other disciplines evidently finding it useful for this purpose.

FUTURE

Comparisons between active and ‘lazy’ Twitter users.

Closer analysis of the scientific tweets and possible relationships between the tweets and citations.

Qualitative study about the researchers’ own thoughts about how they use and what they think about Twitter.

Kim Holmberg, PhDStatistical Cybermetrics Research GroupUniversity of Wolverhampton, UKK.Holmberg@wlv.ac.uk http://kimholmberg.fi @kholmber

AcknowledgementsThis manuscript is based upon work supported by the international funding initiative Digging into Data. Specifically, funding comes from the National Science Foundation in the United States (Grant No. 1208804), JISC in the United Kingdom, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Thank you for listening