↓ Skip to main content

The professional Twitter account: creation, proper maintenance, and continuous successful operation

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Cytopathology, April 2017
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 (#6 of 706)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
53 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
The professional Twitter account: creation, proper maintenance, and continuous successful operation
Published in
Diagnostic Cytopathology, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/dc.23710
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emilio Madrigal, Xiaoyin Sara Jiang, Sinchita Roy-Chowdhuri

Abstract

Social networking platforms have created a unique venue for pathologists and associated stakeholders to communicate and share information in a rapidly proliferating field. Among the myriad of available platforms, Twitter has become one of the most widely accepted by healthcare professionals, for its ease of use, similarities to a real life conversation, and vast global reach. Although the adaptation rate of Twitter continues to grow, many healthcare professionals perceive the establishment and maintenance of an online presence to be a daunting task, leaving some on the outside, looking in. By creating this practical reference, we hope to elucidate the necessary steps for pathologists and their organizations to join and effectively engage the healthcare community on Twitter. The reader is encouraged to review the provided glossary of key terms (Table 1) and the anatomy of a tweet (Figure 1) before reading this Timely Review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 29%
Student > Master 1 14%
Professor 1 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 29%
Unspecified 1 14%
Social Sciences 1 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 14%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 16 March 2018.
All research outputs
#417,480
of 12,179,547 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Cytopathology
#6
of 706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,573
of 266,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Cytopathology
#2
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,179,547 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 706 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. 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 266,825 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 95% of its contemporaries.