↓ Skip to main content

The unbearable emptiness of tweeting—About journal articles

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2017
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
692 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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 unbearable emptiness of tweeting—About journal articles
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0183551
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolas Robinson-Garcia, Rodrigo Costas, Kimberley Isett, Julia Melkers, Diana Hicks

Abstract

Enthusiasm for using Twitter as a source of data in the social sciences extends to measuring the impact of research with Twitter data being a key component in the new altmetrics approach. In this paper, we examine tweets containing links to research articles in the field of dentistry to assess the extent to which tweeting about scientific papers signifies engagement with, attention to, or consumption of scientific literature. The main goal is to better comprehend the role Twitter plays in scholarly communication and the potential value of tweet counts as traces of broader engagement with scientific literature. In particular, the pattern of tweeting to the top ten most tweeted scientific dental articles and of tweeting by accounts is examined. The ideal that tweeting about scholarly articles represents curating and informing about state-of-the-art appears not to be realized in practice. We see much presumably human tweeting almost entirely mechanical and devoid of original thought, no evidence of conversation, tweets generated by monomania, duplicate tweeting from many accounts under centralized professional management and tweets generated by bots. Some accounts exemplify the ideal, but they represent less than 10% of tweets. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from twitter data is swamped by the mechanical nature of the bulk of tweeting behavior. In light of these results, we discuss the compatibility of Twitter with the research enterprise as well as some of the financial incentives behind these patterns.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 692 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 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 162 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 16%
Researcher 24 15%
Other 18 11%
Librarian 16 10%
Student > Master 14 9%
Other 42 26%
Unknown 22 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 49 30%
Computer Science 20 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 9%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 24 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 467. 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 29 March 2021.
All research outputs
#33,320
of 18,511,551 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#613
of 169,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,058
of 281,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#14
of 2,920 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,511,551 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 169,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. 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 281,575 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,920 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 99% of its contemporaries.