Affiliation:
1. Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research
2. Administrative Headquarters of the Max Planck Society
Abstract
Twitter data are used as alternative metrics (altmetrics) to measure the impact or attention of research. Tweets are used to communicate about papers. However, Twitter data can only be used for research evaluation purposes, if biases do not influence tweet decisions on papers. The existence of biases can only be reasonably investigated using an experimental design with controlled (marginal) manipulations. In this comment, we propose to undertake an experimental approach to study the decision of scientists to ‘tweet’ on a paper. We describe the design of a study that might allow the experimental investigation of tweet decisions including randomized variations and theoretically derived mechanisms for explaining the empirical results. The described study design should be adaptable to other social media platforms (e.g., Facebook or ResearchGate). This comment is intended to be a plea for using an experimental design to investigate biases in tweet decisions. It is an advantage of tweets –in contrast to citations– that an experimental approach can be applied to investigate the decision of scientists to communicate on papers.
Publisher
Ediciones Profesionales de la Informacion SL
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Information Systems,General Medicine
Reference36 articles.
1. Acock, Alan C. (2018). A gentle introduction to Stata (6th ed.). College Station, TX, USA: Stata Press. ISBN: 978 1 59718 269 0
2. Anderson, Melissa S. (2000). “Normative orientations of university faculty and doctoral students”. Science and engineering ethics, v. 6, n. 4, pp. 443-461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-000-0002-6
3. Austin, Peter C. (2011). “An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies”. Multivariate behavioral research, v. 46, n. 3, pp. 399-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786
4. Berger, Peter L.; Luckmann, Thomas (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY, USA: Doubleday. http://perflensburg.se/Berger%20social-construction-of-reality.pdf
5. Bornmann, Lutz; Mutz, Rüdiger; Daniel, Hans-Dieter (2011). “A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: A multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants”. PLoS one, v. 5, n. 12, e14331. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014331
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Measuring serendipity with altmetrics and randomness;Journal of Librarianship and Information Science;2022-09-20