IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v112y2017i2d10.1007_s11192-017-2413-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping a Twitter scholarly communication network: a case of the association of internet researchers’ conference

Author

Listed:
  • Mi Kyung Lee

    (Yeungnam University)

  • Ho Young Yoon

    (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

  • Marc Smith

    (Social Media Research Foundation)

  • Hye Jin Park

    (University at Albany, SUNY)

  • Han Woo Park

    (Yeungnam University)

Abstract

This paper investigates how scholars in the digital humanities use Twitter for informal scholarly communication. In particular, the paper observes the hosting of an annual conference over a number of years by one association in order to see whether there was a change in the network configuration structure, the influential scholars in the network, the information sources, and the tweet contents. Annual conferences held by the Association of Internet Researchers over 3 years are used for data collection. According to our result, while the Twitter communication network developed into a bigger network, the basic form of the network configuration remained stable as a Tight Crowd structure and the core influential people were not much changed. Analyses on information source and content found topic changes in each year but consistency in the kind of information source and content.

Suggested Citation

  • Mi Kyung Lee & Ho Young Yoon & Marc Smith & Hye Jin Park & Han Woo Park, 2017. "Mapping a Twitter scholarly communication network: a case of the association of internet researchers’ conference," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 767-797, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:112:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2413-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2413-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2413-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-017-2413-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Lutz Bornmann, 2016. "What do altmetrics counts mean? A plea for content analyses," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(4), pages 1016-1017, April.
    2. Kim Holmberg & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1027-1042, November.
    3. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild, 2016. "How to normalize Twitter counts? A first attempt based on journals in the Twitter Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1405-1422, June.
    4. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2015. "ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(5), pages 876-889, May.
    5. Richard Van Noorden, 2014. "Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network," Nature, Nature, vol. 512(7513), pages 126-129, August.
    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. Meijun Liu & Xiao Hu & Jiang Li, 2018. "Knowledge flow in China’s humanities and social sciences," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 607-626, March.
    2. Hou, Jianhua & Wang, Yuanyuan & Zhang, Yang & Wang, Dongyi, 2022. "How do scholars and non-scholars participate in dataset dissemination on Twitter," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).

    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. Yu, Houqiang & Xiao, Tingting & Xu, Shenmeng & Wang, Yuefen, 2019. "Who posts scientific tweets? An investigation into the productivity, locations, and identities of scientific tweeters," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 841-855.
    2. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2017. "What we can learn from tweets linking to research papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 349-369, April.
    3. Mazarakis, Athanasios & Peters, Isabella, 2015. "Quo Vadis German Scholarly Communication in Economics?," EconStor Conference Papers 110679, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    4. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 351-360, July.
    5. Yan, Weiwei & Zhang, Yin, 2018. "Research universities on the ResearchGate social networking site: An examination of institutional differences, research activity level, and social networks formed," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 385-400.
    6. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2021. "What affects publications’ popularity on Twitter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9185-9198, November.
    7. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Measuring Societal Impacts Of Research With Altmetrics? Common Problems And Mistakes," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1302-1314, December.
    8. Łukasz Wiechetek & Zbigniew Pastuszak, 2022. "Academic social networks metrics: an effective indicator for university performance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1381-1401, March.
    9. Sergio Copiello & Pietro Bonifaci, 2019. "ResearchGate Score, full-text research items, and full-text reads: a follow-up study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1255-1262, May.
    10. Muhammad Omar & Arif Mehmood & Gyu Sang Choi & Han Woo Park, 2017. "Global mapping of artificial intelligence in Google and Google Scholar," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1269-1305, December.
    11. Sergio Copiello & Pietro Bonifaci, 2018. "A few remarks on ResearchGate score and academic reputation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 301-306, January.
    12. Vivek Kumar Singh & Satya Swarup Srichandan & Hiran H. Lathabai, 2022. "ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1515-1542, March.
    13. Mojisola Erdt & Aarthy Nagarajan & Sei-Ching Joanna Sin & Yin-Leng Theng, 2016. "Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1117-1166, November.
    14. Dong Joon Lee & Besiki Stvilia & Seungyeon Ha & Douglas Hahn, 2023. "The structure and priorities of researchers' scholarly profile maintenance activities: A case of institutional research information management system," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(2), pages 186-204, February.
    15. J. C. F. Winter, 2015. "The relationship between tweets, citations, and article views for PLOS ONE articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(2), pages 1773-1779, February.
    16. Zhichao Fang & Rodrigo Costas & Paul Wouters, 2022. "User engagement with scholarly tweets of scientific papers: a large-scale and cross-disciplinary analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4523-4546, August.
    17. Enrique Orduna-Malea & Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2017. "Do ResearchGate Scores create ghost academic reputations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 443-460, July.
    18. Julia Vainio & Kim Holmberg, 2017. "Highly tweeted science articles: who tweets them? An analysis of Twitter user profile descriptions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 345-366, July.
    19. Shannon Mason & Yusuke Sakurai, 2021. "A ResearchGate-way to an international academic community?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1149-1171, February.
    20. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Author-level metrics in the new academic profile platforms: The online behaviour of the Bibliometrics community," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 494-509.

    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:spr:scient:v:112:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2413-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.