↓ Skip to main content

Expert communication on Twitter: Comparing economists’ and scientists’ social networks, topics and communicative styles

Overview of attention for article published in Public Understanding of Science, September 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
52 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Expert communication on Twitter: Comparing economists’ and scientists’ social networks, topics and communicative styles
Published in
Public Understanding of Science, September 2020
DOI 10.1177/0963662520957252
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marina Della Giusta, Sylvia Jaworska, Danica Vukadinović Greetham

Abstract

Experts increasingly use social media to communicate with the wider public, prompted by the need to demonstrate impact and public engagement. While previous research on the use of social media by experts focused on single topics and performed sentiment analysis, we propose to extend the scope by investigating experts' networks, topics and communicative styles. We perform social and semantic network as well language analysis of top tweeting scientists and economists. We find that economists tweet less, mention fewer people and have fewer Twitter conversations with members of the public than scientists. Scientists use a more informal and involved style and engage wider audiences through multimedia contents, while economists use more jargon, and tend to favour traditional written media. The results point to differences in experts' communicative practices online, and we propose that disciplinary ways of 'talking' may pose obstacles to an effective public communication of expert knowledge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 26 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 18 26%
Computer Science 4 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 27 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,246,628
of 25,670,640 outputs
Outputs from Public Understanding of Science
#142
of 1,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,197
of 428,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Understanding of Science
#4
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,670,640 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,119 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 428,275 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.