CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 63scientometrics and bibliometrics researchAcademic Publishing and Open AccessWeb visibility and informetrics

Highly tweeted science articles: who tweets them? An analysis of Twitter user profile descriptions

Open access
Vainio, Julia, Holmberg, Kim·2017·Scientometrics
DOI 10.1007/s11192-017-2368-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11192-017-2368-0

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Estudios previos han usado el contenido de la biografía de perfil en Twitter para identificar características de los usuarios y clasificarlos.

    “Varios estudios han usado el contenido de la biografía de perfil en Twitter para identificar el campo al que pertenece un académico en Twitter (Vainio & Holmberg, 2017), para clasificar tipos de usuarios según su relación con una protesta política (Santos, 2018), para estudiar el self-branding de periodistas en Twitter a partir de las palabras, links y metadatos de la biografía (Hanusch & Bruns, 2”

    From “Vital testimonio confirm󔦔: Polarización de fuentes y redes en el Caso Catrillanca en Twitter (2021) · cites this paper as Vainio & Holmberg, 2017

    The Introduction and Methods describe using Twitter profile biographies to identify and categorize characteristics of users who shared scientific articles. However, the paper categorizes users mainly by role or occupation; its four scientific fields classify the articles, not the academic fields of individual users. The specific claim that it identified which field an academic belonged to is therefore not established. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Badenschier, F., Holger, W. (2012). Issue selection in science journalism: towards a special theory of news values for science news? Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, 28 (February), 273-289. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007- 2085-5 · DOI
  2. Bird, S. J. (2014). Socially responsible science is more than "good science". Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 15(2), 169-72. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.870 · DOI
  3. Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 10008(10), 6. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742- 5468/2008/10/P10008 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bornmann, L. (2016). What do altmetrics counts mean? A plea for content analyses. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23633 · DOI
  5. Brigham, T. J. (2014). An introduction to altmetrics. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 33(4), 438-47. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25316077
  6. Courtial, J. P. (1994). A coword analysis of scientometrics. Scientometrics, 31(3), 251-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016875 · DOI
  7. Desai, T., Shariff, A., Shariff, A., Kats, M., Fang, X., Christiano, C., & Ferris, M. (2012). Tweeting the meeting: An in- depth analysis of Twitter activity at kidney week 2011. PLoS ONE, 7(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040253 · DOI
  8. Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2041 · DOI
  9. Hadgu, A. T., & Jäschke, R. (2014). Identifying and analyzing researchers on twitter. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings (Vol. 1226, pp. 164-165). https://doi.org/10.1145/2615569.2615676 · DOI
  10. Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., Holmberg, K., Peters & Larivière, V. (2014). Astrophysicists on Twitter: An in-depth analysis of tweeting and scientific publication behavior. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(3), 279-296. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-09-2013-0081 · DOI
  11. Holmberg, K. (2014). The meaning of altmetrics. IATUL Annual Conference Proceedings, (35), 1-11. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=llf&AN=97787073&site=ehost-live
  12. Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3 · DOI
  13. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Lambiotte, R., Delvenne, J.-C., & Barahona, M. (2008). Laplacian Dynamics and Multiscale Modular Structure in Networks. arXiv Preprint arXiv:0812.1770, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSE.2015.2391998 · DOI
  15. Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2009). The Decline in the Concentration of Citations , 1900 -2007. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 858-862. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi · DOI
  16. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Naturalistic Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325006070288 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Liu, C. L., Xu, Y. Q., Wu, H., Chen, S. S., & Guo, J. J. (2013). Correlation and interaction visualization of altmetric indicators extracted from scholarly social network activities: dimensions and structure. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(11). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2707 · DOI
  18. Mislove, A., Lehmann, S., Ahn, Y., Onnela, J., & Rosenquist, J. N. (2011). Understanding the Demographics of Twitter Users. Artificial Intelligence, 554-557. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/viewFile/2816/3234
  19. Neiger, B. L., Thackeray, R., Burton, S. H., Giraud-Carrier, C. G., & Fagen, M. C. (2013). Evaluating Social Media's Capacity to Develop Engaged Audiences in Health Promotion Settings: Use of Twitter Metrics as a Case Study. Health Promotion Practice, 14(2), 157-162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839912469378 · DOI
  20. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Qualitative Inquiry (Vol. 3rd). https://doi.org/10.2307/330063 · DOI
  21. Priem, J., & Costello, K. L. (2010). How and why scholars cite on Twitter. In Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting (Vol. 47). https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504701201 · DOI
  22. Priem, J., Groth, P., & Taraborelli, D. (2012). The Altmetrics Collection. PLoS ONE, 7(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048753 · DOI
  23. Segerberg, A., & Bennett, W. L. (2011). Social Media and the Organization of Collective Action: Using Twitter to Explore the Ecologies of Two Climate Change Protests. The Communication Review, 14(3), 197-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2011.597250 · DOI
  24. Semertzidis, K., Pitoura, E., & Tsaparas, P. (2013). How people describe themselves on Twitter. Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Workshop on Databases and Social Networks -DBSocial '13, 25-30. https://doi.org/10.1145/2484702.2484708 · DOI
  25. Thelwall, M., Tsou, A., Weingart, S., Holmberg, K., & Haustein, S. (2013). Tweeting links to academic articles. Cybermetrics, 17(1), 1-8.
  26. Uddin, M. M., Imran, M., & Sajjad, H. (2014). Understanding Types of Users on Twitter. arXiv Preprint, 6. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.1335 · arXiv
  27. Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Sams, S. (2011). Is the voter only a tweet away? Micro blogging during the 2009 European Parliament election campaign in the Netherlands. First Monday, 16(8). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i8.3540 · DOI
  28. Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative Analysis of Content. Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science, 421. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20661 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vainio, J., & Holmberg, K.
Affiliations
University of Turku (FI)
Corresponding author
Vainio, Julia
ORCID
Holmberg, Kim
Venue
Scientometrics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-04-01
Volume
112
Issue
1
Pages
345-366
ISSN
  • 0138-9130 (ISSN-L)
  • 1588-2861
DOI
10.1007/s11192-017-2368-0
OpenAlex
W2601484670
Cited by
63
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 3
FWCI
7.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (unspecified)
Locations
  • Scientometrics (publishedVersion)
  • UTUPub (University of Turku) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
Keywords
Twitter, altmetrics, science communication, social media accounts, disciplinary differences

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