The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature
Open accessAbstract
Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012. The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social‐media‐based metrics.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter
Boyd, D., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010) · 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2010.412 · Cited by 2,051
Twitter power: Tweets as electronic word of mouth
Jansen, B. J., Zhang, M., Sobel, K., & Chowdury, A. (2009) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21149 · Cited by 1,642
Want to be Retweeted? Large Scale Analytics on Factors Impacting Retweet in Twitter Network
Suh, B., Hong, L., Pirolli, P., & Chi, E. H. (2010) · 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing · doi:10.1109/socialcom.2010.33 · Cited by 1,166
Eysenbach, G. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2012 · Cited by 1,083
Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services
Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064841 · Cited by 907
Self-citationSelf-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research
Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., Brody, T., & Harnad, S. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013636 · Cited by 602
Self-citationPiwowar, H. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/493159a · Cited by 397
Social media use in the research workflow
ROWLANDS, I., NICHOLAS, D., RUSSELL, B., CANTY, N., & WATKINSON, A. (2011) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1087/20110306 · Cited by 340
Shuai, X., Pepe, A., & Bollen, J. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047523 · Cited by 293
Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication
Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3 · Cited by 289
Self-citation
Cited by
Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., & Wouters, P. (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23309 · Cited by 711
Bornmann, L. (2014) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005 · Cited by 578
Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication
Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3 · Cited by 289
Self-citationPeer review: still king in the digital age
NICHOLAS, D., WATKINSON, A., JAMALI, H. R., HERMAN, E., TENOPIR, C., VOLENTINE, R., ALLARD, S., & LEVINE, K. (2015) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1087/20150104 · Cited by 242
Tweets as impact indicators: Examining the implications of automated “bot” accounts on Twitter
Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., Holmberg, K., Tsou, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2016) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23456 · Cited by 231
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., & Larivière, V.
- Venue
- Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-11-26
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 656-669
- ISSN
- 2330-1635 (ISSN-L)
- 2330-1643
- OpenAlex
- W1491754772
- Cited by
- 434
- References
- 37
- FWCI
- 42.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/asi.23101
- The paper
- Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., & Larivière, V. (2014). Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23101
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
