↓ Skip to main content

Astrophysicists’ Conversational Connections on Twitter

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2014
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
40 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Astrophysicists’ Conversational Connections on Twitter
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0106086
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kim Holmberg, Timothy D. Bowman, Stefanie Haustein, Isabella Peters

Abstract

Because Twitter and other social media are increasingly used for analyses based on altmetrics, this research sought to understand what contexts, affordance use, and social activities influence the tweeting behavior of astrophysicists. Thus, the presented study has been guided by three research questions that consider the influence of astrophysicists' activities (i.e., publishing and tweeting frequency) and of their tweet construction and affordance use (i.e. use of hashtags, language, and emotions) on the conversational connections they have on Twitter. We found that astrophysicists communicate with a variety of user types (e.g. colleagues, science communicators, other researchers, and educators) and that in the ego networks of the astrophysicists clear groups consisting of users with different professional roles can be distinguished. Interestingly, the analysis of noun phrases and hashtags showed that when the astrophysicists address the different groups of very different professional composition they use very similar terminology, but that they do not talk to each other (i.e. mentioning other user names in tweets). The results also showed that in those areas of the ego networks that tweeted more the sentiment of the tweets tended to be closer to neutral, connecting frequent tweeting with information sharing activities rather than conversations or expressing opinions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 5%
Canada 4 4%
Netherlands 3 3%
Spain 2 2%
Switzerland 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 76 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 17%
Librarian 13 14%
Student > Master 11 12%
Other 6 6%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 32 34%
Computer Science 13 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Arts and Humanities 5 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 21 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 28 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,024,797
of 24,719,968 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#13,375
of 213,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,304
of 241,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#342
of 4,894 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,719,968 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 213,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 241,283 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,894 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.