The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Social media use in the research workflow
Abstract
The paper reports on a major international survey, covering 2,000 researchers, which investigated the use of social media in the research workflow. The topic is the second to emerge from the Charleston Observatory, the research adjunct of the popular annual Charleston Conference (http://www.katina.info/conference/). The study shows that social media have found serious application at all points of the research lifecycle, from identifying research opportunities to disseminating findings at the end. The three most popular social media tools in a research setting were those for collaborative authoring, conferencing, and scheduling meetings. The most popular brands used tend to be mainstream anchor technologies or ‘household brands‘, such as Twitter. Age is a poor predictor of social media use in a research context, and humanities and social science scholars avail themselves most of social media. Journals, conference proceedings, and edited books remain the core traditional means of disseminating research, with institutional repositories highly valued as well, but social media have become important complementary channels for disseminating and discovering research.
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
Cited by
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
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
Desrochers, N., Paul-Hus, A., Haustein, S., Costas, R., Mongeon, P., Quan-Haase, A., Bowman, T. D., Pecoskie, J., Tsou, A., & Larivière, V. (2018) · Social Science Information · doi:10.1177/0539018417752089 · Cited by 91
Spezi, V. (2016) · New Review of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1080/13614533.2015.1127831 · Cited by 63
Hoffberg, A. S., Huggins, J., Cobb, A., Forster, J. E., & Bahraini, N. (2020) · Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics · doi:10.3389/frma.2020.564193 · Cited by 25
“Surveys of researchers found that ∼10–15% used microblogging tools (Rowlands et al., 2011; Grande et al., 2014), and Twitter has emerged as the premiere microblogging tool in scholarly communication.”
BackgroundCurrent Uses (and Potential Misuses) of Facebook: An Online Survey in Physiotherapy
Laliberté, M., Beaulieu-Poulin, C., Campeau Larrivée, A., Charbonneau, M., Samson, É., & Ehrmann Feldman, D. (2016) · Physiotherapy Canada · doi:10.3138/ptc.2014-41 · Cited by 20
Social networking in an academic conference context: insights from a case study
Levy, M., Hadar, I., Te'eni, D., Unkelos-Shpigel, N., Sherman, S., & Harel, N. (2016) · Information Technology & People · doi:10.1108/itp-09-2014-0220 · Cited by 16
Bennett, H., & Slattery, F. (2023) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04709-2 · Cited by 8
“However, coinciding with an increased emphasis on alternative metrics, there has been a recent shift in the way the public access and interact with science, largely driven by social media becoming an important vehicle for science communication (Huber et al., 2019; Rowlands et al., 2011; Van Noorden, 2014).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- ROWLANDS, I., NICHOLAS, D., RUSSELL, B., CANTY, N., & WATKINSON, A.
- Venue
- Learned Publishing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-07
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 183-195
- ISSN
- 0953-1513 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-4857
- OpenAlex
- W2614298075
- Cited by
- 340
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 42.78
- 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
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.
