The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication
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
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.
Merton, R. K. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56 · Cited by 6,720
(1968) · PubMed · Cited by 4,803
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd ed
GROVE, W. A. (1981) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.138.12.1644-a · Cited by 3,748
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
Scholarly communication and bibliometrics
Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002) · Annual Review of Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/aris.1440360102 · Cited by 1,121
Eysenbach, G. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2012 · Cited by 1,083
Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration via Twitter
(2009) · 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2009.89 · Cited by 953
Cited by
Bornmann, L. (2014) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005 · Cited by 578
Chae, B. (. (2015) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.037 · Cited by 481
Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature
Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., & Larivière, V. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.23101 · Cited by 434
Self-citationAlternative metrics in scientometrics: a meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics
Bornmann, L. (2015) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1565-y · Cited by 202
A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter
Ke, Q., Ahn, Y.-Y., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175368 · Cited by 175
Metadata
- Authors
- Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M.
- Venue
- Scientometrics
- Published
- 2014-01-22
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1027-1042
- ISSN
- 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
- 1588-2861
- OpenAlex
- W1989833929
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 38
- FWCI
- 32.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3
- The paper
- Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3
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.
