Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.047419276 = product of:
  0.09483855 = sum of:
    0.06940313 = weight(_text_:data in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06940313 = score(doc=605,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.46871632 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
    0.025435425 = product of:
      0.05087085 = sum of:
        0.05087085 = weight(_text_:processing in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05087085 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18956426 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.26835677 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The data re-collection for tweets from data snapshots is a common methodological step in Twitter-based research. Understanding better the volatility of tweets over time is important for validating the reliability of metrics based on Twitter data. We tracked a set of 37,918 original scholarly tweets mentioning COVID-19-related research daily for 56 days and captured the reasons for the changes in their availability over time. Results show that the proportion of unavailable tweets increased from 1.6 to 2.6% in the time window observed. Of the 1,323 tweets that became unavailable at some point in the period observed, 30.5% became available again afterwards. "Revived" tweets resulted mainly from the unprotecting, reactivating, or unsuspending of users' accounts. Our findings highlight the importance of noting this dynamic nature of Twitter data in altmetric research and testify to the challenges that this poses for the retrieval, processing, and interpretation of Twitter data about scientific papers.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 1189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=1189,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 1189, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1189)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the validity of tweets about scientific publications as an indicator of societal impact by measuring the degree to which the publications are tweeted beyond academia. We introduce methods that allow for using a much larger and broader data set than in previous validation studies. It covers all areas of research and includes almost 40 million tweets by 2.5 million unique tweeters mentioning almost 4 million scientific publications. We find that, although half of the tweeters are external to academia, most of the tweets are from within academia, and most of the external tweets are responses to original tweets within academia. Only half of the tweeted publications are tweeted outside of academia. We conclude that, in general, the tweeting of scientific publications is not a valid indicator of the societal impact of research. However, publications that continue being tweeted after a few days represent recent scientific achievements that catch attention in society. These publications occur more often in the health sciences and in the social sciences and humanities.