IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v45y2018i6p804-814..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientific knowledge percolation process and social impact: A case study on the biotechnology and microbiology perceptions on Twitter

Author

Listed:
  • Beatriz Barros
  • Ana Fernández-Zubieta
  • Raul Fidalgo-Merino
  • Francisco Triguero

Abstract

This article describes a methodology for analysing the diffusion of scientific information into the social sphere, termed the ‘scientific knowledge percolation process’. The methodology was built using automated data collection and lexicon-based data mining techniques. We analysed literature from the scientific biotechnology community (158 journals in 2011; 29,892 articles generating 50,591 different keywords) and how it is perceived by users of the social media site Twitter (375,660 tweets with a subset classified by sentiment (positive, negative, and neutral) for a total of 33,900 tweets for 2012). We show that our method is able to provide data from which we can draw robust conclusions concerning the relationship between scientific and social media information. The study shows that the scientific production of our subset is socially perceived in a neutral manner although it is skewed towards the negative. Because sentiments are relevant for explaining the sharing behaviour of social media users, the results suggest that more attention needs to be paid towards the social perceptions of scientific research. We found that similar scientific concepts can be socially perceived in different ways, which may suggest that there is room for scientists to choose more ‘socially friendly’ descriptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Beatriz Barros & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Raul Fidalgo-Merino & Francisco Triguero, 2018. "Scientific knowledge percolation process and social impact: A case study on the biotechnology and microbiology perceptions on Twitter," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 804-814.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:45:y:2018:i:6:p:804-814.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scy022
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mike Thelwall & Kevan Buckley & Georgios Paltoglou, 2011. "Sentiment in Twitter events," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(2), pages 406-418, February.
    2. Vittorio Fuccella & Domenico De Stefano & Maria Prosperina Vitale & Susanna Zaccarin, 2016. "Improving co-authorship network structures by combining multiple data sources: evidence from Italian academic statisticians," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(1), pages 167-184, April.
    3. Geuna, Aldo & Kataishi, Rodrigo & Toselli, Manuel & Guzmán, Eduardo & Lawson, Cornelia & Fernandez-Zubieta, Ana & Barros, Beatriz, 2015. "SiSOB data extraction and codification: A tool to analyze scientific careers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1645-1658.
    4. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    5. Unknown, 2014. "Media Coverage 2014," 2014: Ethics, Efficiency and Food Security: Feeding the 9 Billion, Well, 26-28 August 2014 225573, Crawford Fund.
    6. John Durant, 1999. "Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 313-319, October.
    7. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    8. Kaplan, Andreas M. & Haenlein, Michael, 2010. "Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 59-68, January.
    9. John C. Besley, 2015. "What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 201-214.
    10. Jerome S. Legge Jr. & Robert F. Durant, 2010. "Public Opinion, Risk Assessment, and Biotechnology: Lessons from Attitudes toward Genetically Modified Foods in the European Union," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 27(1), pages 59-76, January.
    11. Mike Thelwall & Kevan Buckley & Georgios Paltoglou, 2011. "Sentiment in Twitter events," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(2), pages 406-418, February.
    12. Stefanie Haustein & Isabella Peters & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Mike Thelwall & Vincent Larivière, 2014. "Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(4), pages 656-669, April.
    13. Xin Shuai & Alberto Pepe & Johan Bollen, 2012. "How the Scientific Community Reacts to Newly Submitted Preprints: Article Downloads, Twitter Mentions, and Citations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-8, November.
    14. Effie Amanatidou & Maurits Butter & Vicente Carabias & Totti Könnölä & Miriam Leis & Ozcan Saritas & Petra Schaper-Rinkel & Victor van Rij, 2012. "On concepts and methods in horizon scanning: Lessons from initiating policy dialogues on emerging issues," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(2), pages 208-221, March.
    15. Oliver Escobar, 2014. "Upstream public engagement, downstream policy-making? The Brain Imaging Dialogue as a community of inquiry," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 480-492.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anthony F. J. van Raan, 2021. "Sleeping beauties gain impact in overdrive mode," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4311-4332, May.
    2. Alba Viana Lora & Marta Gemma Nel-lo Andreu, 2020. "Alternative Metrics for Assessing the Social Impact of Tourism Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-12, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liwen Vaughan, 2016. "Uncovering information from social media hyperlinks: An investigation of twitter," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(5), pages 1105-1120, May.
    2. Ma, Jie & Tse, Ying Kei & Wang, Xiaojun & Zhang, Minhao, 2019. "Examining customer perception and behaviour through social media research – An empirical study of the United Airlines overbooking crisis," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 192-205.
    3. Zavala, Araceli & Ramirez-Marquez, Jose Emmanuel, 2019. "Visual analytics for identifying product disruptions and effects via social media," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 544-559.
    4. Hou, Jianhua & Yang, Xiucai, 2020. "Social media-based sleeping beauties: Defining, identifying and features," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    5. Lutz Bornmann, 2015. "Alternative metrics in scientometrics: a meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 1123-1144, June.
    6. Luis-Millán González & José Devís-Devís & Maite Pellicer-Chenoll & Miquel Pans & Alberto Pardo-Ibañez & Xavier García-Massó & Fernanda Peset & Fernanda Garzón-Farinós & Víctor Pérez-Samaniego, 2021. "The Impact of COVID-19 on Sport in Twitter: A Quantitative and Qualitative Content Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-20, April.
    7. Diana Maynard & Gerhard Gossen & Adam Funk & Marco Fisichella, 2014. "Should I Care about Your Opinion? Detection of Opinion Interestingness and Dynamics in Social Media," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-25, August.
    8. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Yang Zhang, 2023. "The effect of social media knowledge cascade: an analysis of scientific papers diffusion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5169-5195, September.
    9. Ashish Kumar Rathore & Santanu Das & P. Vigneswara Ilavarasan, 2018. "Social Media Data Inputs in Product Design: Case of a Smartphone," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 19(3), pages 255-272, September.
    10. Karin Sim Smith & Richard McCreadie & Craig Macdonald & Iadh Ounis, 2018. "Regional Sentiment Bias in Social Media Reporting During Crises," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 1013-1025, October.
    11. Lipizzi, Carlo & Iandoli, Luca & Ramirez Marquez, José Emmanuel, 2015. "Extracting and evaluating conversational patterns in social media: A socio-semantic analysis of customers’ reactions to the launch of new products using Twitter streams," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 490-503.
    12. Chieh Liu & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2022. "Exploring the relationships between altmetric counts and citations of papers in different academic fields based on co-occurrence analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4939-4958, August.
    13. Thomas T. Hills & Eugenio Proto & Daniel Sgroi & Chanuki Illushka Seresinhe, 2019. "Historical analysis of national subjective wellbeing using millions of digitized books," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(12), pages 1271-1275, December.
    14. Ping-Yu Hsu & Hong-Tsuen Lei & Shih-Hsiang Huang & Teng Hao Liao & Yao-Chung Lo & Chin-Chun Lo, 2019. "Effects of sentiment on recommendations in social network," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(2), pages 253-262, June.
    15. Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Clifford, McKenna & Slipchenko, Natalya, 2020. "Social media sentimentas an additional performance measure? Examples from iconic theme park destinations," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    16. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.
    17. Xu, Fang & Ou, Guiyan & Ma, Tingcan & Wang, Xianwen, 2021. "The consistency of impact of preprints and their journal publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    18. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Adams, Jonathan, 2019. "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)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 325-340.
    19. Saeideh Ebrahimy & Jafar Mehrad & Fatemeh Setareh & Massoud Hosseinchari, 2016. "Path analysis of the relationship between visibility and citation: the mediating roles of save, discussion, and recommendation metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1497-1510, December.
    20. Stefan Stieglitz & Christian Meske & Björn Ross & Milad Mirbabaie, 2020. "Going Back in Time to Predict the Future - The Complex Role of the Data Collection Period in Social Media Analytics," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 395-409, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:45:y:2018:i:6:p:804-814.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.