Tweeting links to academic articles

Academic articles are now frequently tweeted and so Twitter seems to be a useful tool for scholars to use to help keep up with publications and discussions in their fields. Perhaps as a result of this, tweet counts are increasingly used by digital libraries and journal websites as indicators of an a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Thelwall, Mike, Tsou, Andrew, Weingart, Scott, Holmberg, Kim, Haustein, Stefanie
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2013
País:España
Institución:Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
Repositorio:DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC
OAI Identifier:oai:digital.csic.es:10261/174572
Acceso en línea:http://hdl.handle.net/10261/174572
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Altmetrics
Twitter
Webometrics
Content analysis
id ES_d225c020fbb6ecb7f225b431d2b6caaa
oai_identifier_str oai:digital.csic.es:10261/174572
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Tweeting links to academic articlesThelwall, MikeTsou, AndrewWeingart, ScottHolmberg, KimHaustein, StefanieAltmetricsTwitterWebometricsContent analysisAcademic articles are now frequently tweeted and so Twitter seems to be a useful tool for scholars to use to help keep up with publications and discussions in their fields. Perhaps as a result of this, tweet counts are increasingly used by digital libraries and journal websites as indicators of an article’s interest or impact. Nevertheless, it is not known whether tweets are typically positive, neutral or critical, or how articles are normally tweeted. These are problems for those wishing to tweet articles effectively and for those wishing to know whether tweet counts in digital libraries should be taken seriously. In response, a pilot study content analysis was conducted of 270 tweets linking to articles in four journals, four digital libraries and two DOI URLs, collected over a period of eight months in 2012. The vast majority of the tweets echoed an article title (42%) or a brief summary (41%). One reason for summarising an article seemed to be to translate it for a general audience. Few tweets explicitly praised an article and none were critical. Most tweets did not directly refer to the article author, but some did and others were clearly self-citations. In summary, tweets containing links to scholarly articles generally provide little more than publicity, and so whilst tweet counts may provide evidence of the popularity of an article, the contents of the tweets themselves are unlikely to give deep insights into scientists' reactions to publications, except perhaps in special casesPeer reviewedEditorial CSIC201920192013info:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501Publisher's versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/174572reponame:DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSICinstname:Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)InglésNoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:digital.csic.es:10261/1745722026-05-22T06:33:51Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Tweeting links to academic articles
title Tweeting links to academic articles
spellingShingle Tweeting links to academic articles
Thelwall, Mike
Altmetrics
Twitter
Webometrics
Content analysis
title_short Tweeting links to academic articles
title_full Tweeting links to academic articles
title_fullStr Tweeting links to academic articles
title_full_unstemmed Tweeting links to academic articles
title_sort Tweeting links to academic articles
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Thelwall, Mike
Tsou, Andrew
Weingart, Scott
Holmberg, Kim
Haustein, Stefanie
author Thelwall, Mike
author_facet Thelwall, Mike
Tsou, Andrew
Weingart, Scott
Holmberg, Kim
Haustein, Stefanie
author_role author
author2 Tsou, Andrew
Weingart, Scott
Holmberg, Kim
Haustein, Stefanie
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Altmetrics
Twitter
Webometrics
Content analysis
topic Altmetrics
Twitter
Webometrics
Content analysis
description Academic articles are now frequently tweeted and so Twitter seems to be a useful tool for scholars to use to help keep up with publications and discussions in their fields. Perhaps as a result of this, tweet counts are increasingly used by digital libraries and journal websites as indicators of an article’s interest or impact. Nevertheless, it is not known whether tweets are typically positive, neutral or critical, or how articles are normally tweeted. These are problems for those wishing to tweet articles effectively and for those wishing to know whether tweet counts in digital libraries should be taken seriously. In response, a pilot study content analysis was conducted of 270 tweets linking to articles in four journals, four digital libraries and two DOI URLs, collected over a period of eight months in 2012. The vast majority of the tweets echoed an article title (42%) or a brief summary (41%). One reason for summarising an article seemed to be to translate it for a general audience. Few tweets explicitly praised an article and none were critical. Most tweets did not directly refer to the article author, but some did and others were clearly self-citations. In summary, tweets containing links to scholarly articles generally provide little more than publicity, and so whilst tweet counts may provide evidence of the popularity of an article, the contents of the tweets themselves are unlikely to give deep insights into scientists' reactions to publications, except perhaps in special cases
publishDate 2013
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2013
2019
2019
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
Publisher's version
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10261/174572
url http://hdl.handle.net/10261/174572
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv No
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Editorial CSIC
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Editorial CSIC
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC
instname:Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
instname_str Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
reponame_str DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC
collection DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869420324541431808
score 15,811543

Similares en LA Referencia