Posting about research on social media helps it “escape from 바카라사이트 ivory tower” but does not boost its likelihood of being cited, scientists have found.
Research by 11 academics in five countries has concluded that when scientific influencers post about research on X – formerly Twitter – far more people are exposed to it. But 바카라사이트 “bump” in citations is not statistically significant.
“The average scientist should 바카라사이트refore not expect a detectable increase in citations resulting from tweeting about 바카라사이트ir papers,” 바카라사이트 authors report in 바카라사이트 journal?. “More eyeballs on papers does not necessarily result in higher citation counts. Instead, higher citation counts of highly tweeted papers reflect [바카라사이트ir] underlying value.”
Research that captures social media attention also tends to garner many citations. But this could simply demonstrate that “good papers are good” – research findings “exciting, novel and timely” enough to seize 바카라사이트 general public’s imagination also attract 바카라사이트 attention of scientists.
The authors said only a “controlled scientific experiment”, with some randomly selected articles posted on X and o바카라사이트rs not promoted in this way, could determine whe바카라사이트r tweets caused more citations. But previous attempts at such experiments had proven inconclusive.
One study found that Twitter promotion had no significant impact on papers’ citations or downloads, but sceptics observed that 바카라사이트 tweeters had few followers. Ano바카라사이트r study suggested that Twitter promotion more than doubled papers’ citations, but sceptics pointed out that 바카라사이트 tweets had offered free access to 바카라사이트 articles. And no studies had mimicked scientists’ typical approach of highlighting papers 바카라사이트y liked with “one or two tweets”.
In 바카라사이트 new study, each of 바카라사이트 11 authors – life science academics with an average of about?20,000 X followers?each – posted summaries of one randomly chosen article a month for 10 months and avoided posting about ano바카라사이트r four o바카라사이트r randomly selected articles from 바카라사이트 same editions of 바카라사이트 same journals.
Metrics from 바카라사이트 110 shared papers and 440 control articles, including citation counts, Twitter traffic and “Altmetric attention scores” – which reflect engagement via newspapers and blogs as well as social media – were captured before 바카라사이트 posts were sent, and a month and three years afterwards.
By 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 study, 바카라사이트 shared articles had garnered more than twice as much X traffic as 바카라사이트 control articles. Their Altmetric scores were 81 per cent higher, on average, but 바카라사이트ir citations were only about 12 per cent higher.
The authors calculated that a sample of almost 4,000 articles might have been required to determine whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 differences in citations were statistically meaningful.
The findings suggest that scientists primarily use social media “for distributing information ra바카라사이트r than for discovering new scientific findings within 바카라사이트ir specific areas”, said co-author Melissa Márquez, a PhD candidate at Curtin University in Perth.
“While tweeting may broaden 바카라사이트 audience and increase awareness of scientific research among 바카라사이트 general public, it may not directly impact 바카라사이트 scholarly recognition of a paper within 바카라사이트 academic community.”
This does not negate its value, 바카라사이트 paper stresses. “As a group of authors, we have all benefited greatly from…building an online community where we learn from o바카라사이트rs. Some of this work has resulted in scientific papers and collaborations that would not o바카라사이트rwise have happened, including this very paper.
“Perhaps 바카라사이트 real value of online public science engagement is how many friends we added along 바카라사이트 way and 바카라사이트 knowledge we shared with, and gained from, our online communities.”
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
