Article, 2021

‘To tweet or not to tweet?’ A study of the use of Twitter by scholarly book publishers in Social Sciences and Humanities

Journal of Informetrics, ISSN 1875-5879, 1751-1577, Volume 15, 3, Page 101170, 10.1016/j.joi.2021.101170

Contributors

Wang, Yajie 0000-0002-8368-2363 [1] [2] Hou, Haiyan 0000-0002-2142-4457 (Corresponding author) [2] Hu, Zhigang 0000-0003-1835-4264 (Corresponding author) [2]

Affiliations

  1. [1] University of Copenhagen
  2. [NORA names: KU University of Copenhagen; University; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  3. [2] Dalian University of Technology
  4. [NORA names: China; Asia, East]

Abstract

Publishers might believe the use of Twitter will help promote their scholarly books. In this study, we analyzed 18,691 books indexed by the Book Citation Index (BKCI) in the Social Sciences and Humanities, published between 2014 and 2018, and proposed two indicators describing the Twitter engagement of publishers: relative coverage and relative receptivity. The results show significant disciplinary and year differences in publishers’ Twitter engagement For instance, in all 10 disciplines, small and medium-sized publishers generally prefer to promote their books (high relative coverage) on Twitter, but the majority of publishers have low relative coverage in these 5 years. In addition, results show that books mentioned by their publishers’ Twitter accounts get significantly higher Twitter mentions (high relative receptivity) as compared to books mentioned by non-publisher’ Twitter accounts. The results suggest that scholarly book publishers should engage in social media activity to increase Twitter mentions and visibility of their books.

Keywords

Book Citation Index, Citation Index, Publisher, Sciences and Humanities, Social, Social Sciences and Humanities, Twitter, Twitter accounts, Twitter engagement, Twitter mentions, accounts, activity, book, book publishing, coverage, differences, disciplines, engagement, humans, index, indicators, media activity, mentions, reception, relative coverages, results, scholarly book publishing, scholarly books, social media activity, study, tweets, visibility, year differences, years

Funders

  • National Natural Science Foundation of China
  • China Scholarship Council

Data Provider: Digital Science