Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.063941434 = product of:
  0.12788287 = sum of:
    0.12788287 = product of:
      0.25576574 = sum of:
        0.25576574 = weight(_text_:2.6 in 605) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.25576574 = score(doc=605,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42922258 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.59588134 = fieldWeight in 605, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=605)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.053284526 = product of:
  0.10656905 = sum of:
    0.10656905 = product of:
      0.2131381 = sum of:
        0.2131381 = weight(_text_:2.6 in 35) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.2131381 = score(doc=35,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42922258 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.4965678 = fieldWeight in 35, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.988837 = idf(docFreq=14, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=35)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study investigated the stability of Twitter counts of scientific publications over time. For this, we conducted an analysis of the availability statuses of over 2.6 million Twitter mentions received by the 1,154 most tweeted scientific publications recorded by Altmetric.com up to October 2017. The results show that of the Twitter mentions for these highly tweeted publications, about 14.3% had become unavailable by April 2019. Deletion of tweets by users is the main reason for unavailability, followed by suspension and protection of Twitter user accounts. This study proposes two measures for describing the Twitter dissemination structures of publications: Degree of Originality (i.e., the proportion of original tweets received by an article) and Degree of Concentration (i.e., the degree to which retweets concentrate on a single original tweet). Twitter metrics of publications with relatively low Degree of Originality and relatively high Degree of Concentration were observed to be at greater risk of becoming unstable due to the potential disappearance of their Twitter mentions. In light of these results, we emphasize the importance of paying attention to the potential risk of unstable Twitter counts, and the significance of identifying the different Twitter dissemination structures when studying the Twitter metrics of scientific publications.

0.0080869375 = product of:
  0.016173875 = sum of:
    0.016173875 = product of:
      0.03234775 = sum of:
        0.03234775 = weight(_text_:22 in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03234775 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16721454 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:02:48

0.0080869375 = product of:
  0.016173875 = sum of:
    0.016173875 = product of:
      0.03234775 = sum of:
        0.03234775 = weight(_text_:22 in 2598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03234775 = score(doc=2598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16721454 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2598, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.00646955 = product of:
  0.0129391 = sum of:
    0.0129391 = product of:
      0.0258782 = sum of:
        0.0258782 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0258782 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16721454 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047750622 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22