CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Academic Publishing and Open AccessSocial Media in Health EducationPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Are Twitter and Blogs Important Tools for the Modern Psychological Scientist?

Weinstein, Yana, Sumeracki, Megan A.·2017·Perspectives on Psychological Science
DOI 10.1177/1745691617712266
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Psychological scientists have many roles, one of which is, arguably, to communicate their research findings to a broader audience. Twitter and blogging offer relatively inexpensive options for this type of outreach. Engagement in these outreach efforts can lead to career enhancement, but also comes at a cost. We examined a sample of 327 psychological scientists to determine the prevalence of this type of outreach; while the use of Twitter appears to be on the rise, blogging remains very rare. In this piece, we explore the costs and benefits for psychological scientists of blogging and engaging with the general public on Twitter, and how tweeting and blogging might relate to academic merit and varieties of fame in psychology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691617712266

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Scientists face growing pressure to present work accessibly, reach wide audiences, and make bold claims about broader implications.

    “At the same time, scientists are increasingly encouraged to describe their work in an accessible manner, to reach out to broad audiences, and to make bold, interesting claims about the wider implications of their findings (tweets, TED talks, and so forth) (8).”

    From Generic language in scientific communication (2019) · cites this paper as [8]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Weinstein, Y., & Sumeracki, M. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Massachusetts Lowell (US)
  • Rhode Island College (US)
Corresponding author
Weinstein, Yana
ORCID
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2017-11
Volume
12
Issue
6
Pages
1171-1175
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
DOI
10.1177/1745691617712266
OpenAlex
W2770737890
Cited by
8
References
12
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
Twitter, blogging, science communication, public outreach, academic careers, academic merit, social media use
MeSH terms
Scholarly Communication, Humans, Psychology, Research Personnel, Information Dissemination, Blogging, Social Media

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