↓ Skip to main content

The value and use of social media as communication tool in the plant sciences

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 992)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
155 tweeters
facebook
13 Facebook pages
googleplus
6 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
334 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
The value and use of social media as communication tool in the plant sciences
Published in
Plant Methods, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1746-4811-9-26
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Osterrieder

Abstract

Social media now complements many parts of our lives. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and many other social networking sites allow users to share and interact with online content and to connect with like-minded people. Its strengths - rapid dissemination and amplification of content and the ability to lead informal conversations - make it a powerful tool to use in a professional context. This commentary explains the overall concept of social media and offers suggestions on usage and possible types of scientific content. It advises researchers on the potential benefits and how to take a strategic approach towards building a social media presence. It also presents examples of effective social media use within the plant science community. Common reasons for scientists to not engage with social media include the fear of appearing unprofessional, posting something wrong or being misunderstood, or a lack of confidence in their computer skills. With the rapid changes in academic publishing, dissemination and science communication, as well as the rise of 'altmetrics' to track online engagement with scientific content, digital literacy will become an essential skill in a scientist's tool kit.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 155 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 334 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 7 2%
United States 6 2%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Nigeria 2 <1%
Indonesia 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 6 2%
Unknown 302 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 17%
Student > Bachelor 46 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 13%
Researcher 33 10%
Librarian 28 8%
Other 75 22%
Unknown 52 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 69 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 49 15%
Computer Science 40 12%
Environmental Science 22 7%
Arts and Humanities 19 6%
Other 75 22%
Unknown 60 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 124. 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 17 December 2021.
All research outputs
#243,114
of 20,991,427 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#2
of 992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,796
of 173,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,991,427 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 173,160 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them