open access publication

Article, 2018

Investigating the quality of interactions and public engagement around scientific papers on Twitter

Journal of Informetrics, ISSN 1875-5879, 1751-1577, Volume 12, 3, Pages 960-971, 10.1016/j.joi.2018.08.002

Contributors

Didegah, Fereshteh 0000-0003-0463-0168 (Corresponding author) [1] [2] Mejlgaard, Niels 0000-0002-9785-1746 [3] Sørensen, Mads P 0000-0003-2455-2515 [3]

Affiliations

  1. [1] Simon Fraser University
  2. [NORA names: Canada; America, North; OECD];
  3. [2] University of British Columbia
  4. [NORA names: Canada; America, North; OECD];
  5. [3] Aarhus University
  6. [NORA names: AU Aarhus University; University; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD]

Abstract

This study explores science communication on Twitter by investigating a sample of tweets referring to academic papers in five different scientific fields. The specifications of science communicators on Twitter, the characteristics of those who initiate actions (by tweeting), the extent and quality of reactions (retweeting), individual and group interactions, and the distribution of tweets across types of engagement in the process of science communication (i.e., dissemination, consultation, and evaluation) were explored. A broad array of actors is involved in the communication of science on Twitter, with individual citizens and individual researchers playing an important role. In principle, this is promising for creating direct interaction, which can be difficult through more traditional mass media. The vast majority of communication activities regarding academic papers is undigested dissemination with almost no sign of debate, contestation, or collective reflection. Another general finding of this study is that bot accounts play a major role in the science communication landscape on Twitter.

Keywords

Twitter, academic papers, accounts, action, activity, actors, bot accounts, bots, characteristics, citizens, collective reflection, communication, communication activities, communication landscape, communication of science, contest, dissemination, distribution, distribution of tweets, engagement, extent, field, group, group interaction, individual researchers, initiate actions, interaction, landscape, mass media, medium, paper, process, process of science communication, public engagement, quality, quality of interaction, quality of reactions, reaction, reflection, research, retweets, sample of tweets, samples, science, science communication, science communication landscape, scientific fields, scientific papers, specificity, study, traditional mass media, tweets

Data Provider: Digital Science