Influence of study type on Twitter activity for medical research papers

Abstract

Twitter has been identified as one of the most popular and promising altmetrics data sources, as it possibly reflects a broader use of research articles by the general public. Several factors, such as document age, scientific discipline, number of authors and document type, have been shown to affect the number of tweets received by scientific documents. The particular meaning of tweets mentioning scholarly papers is, however, not entirely understood and their validity as impact indicators debatable. This study contributes to the understanding of factors influencing Twitter popularity of medical papers investigating differences between medical study types. 162,830 documents indexed in Embase to a medical study type have been analysed for the study type specific tweet frequency. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews and clinical trials were found to be tweeted substantially more frequently than other study types, while all basic research received less attention than the average. The findings correspond well with clinical evidence hierarchies. It is suggested that interest from laymen and patients may be a factor in the observed effects.

arXiv commentPresented at the 15th International Society on Scientometrics & Informetrics (ISSI) Conference, 01 Jul 2015, Istanbul, Turkey

Cited by in corpus (4)

• Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF)
• Does the public discuss other topics on climate change than researchers? A comparison of explorative networks based on author keywords and hashtags
• Are papers addressing certain diseases perceived where these diseases are prevalent? The proposal to use Twitter data as social-spatial sensors
• Do 'altmetric mentions' follow Power Laws? Evidence from social media mention data in Altmetric.com