Citation

Do twitter or facebook activity influence scientific impact?

Are scientists smart when they promote their work on social media? Isn’t this a waste of time, time which could otherwise be spent in the lab running experiments? Perhaps not. An analysis of all available articles published by PLoS journals suggests otherwise.

My own twitter activity might best be thought of as learning about science (in the widest sense), while what I do on facebook is really just shameless procrastination. It turns out that this pattern holds more generally and impacts on how to use social media effectively to promote science.

In order to make this claim, I downloaded the twitter and facebook activity associated with every single article published in any journal by the Public Library of Science (PLoS), using this R-script here. PLoS is the open access publisher of the biggest scientific journal PLoS ONE as well as a number of smaller, more high impact journals. The huge amount of data allows me to have a 90% chance of discovering even a small effect (r = .1) if it actually exists.

I should add that I limited my sample to those articles published after May 2012 (which is when PLoS started tracking tweets) and January 2015 (in order to allow for at least two years to aggregate citations). The 87,649 remaining articles published in any of the PLoS journals offer the following picture.

plos-all_tweets-versus-citations

There is a small but non-negligible association between impact on twitter (tweets) and impact in the scientific literature (citations): Pearson r = .12, p < .001; Spearman rho = .18, p < .001. This pattern held for nearly every PLoS journal individually as well (all Pearson r ≥ .10 except for PLoS Computational Biology; all Spearman rho ≥ .12 except for PLoS Pathogens). This result is in line with Peoples et al.’s (2016) analysis of twitter activity and citations in the field of ecology.

So, twitter might indeed help a bit to promote an article. Does this hold for social media in general? A look at facebook reveals a different picture. The relationship between facebook mentions of an article and its scientific impact is so small as to be practically negligible: Pearson r = .03, p < .001; Spearman rho = .06, p < .001. This pattern of only a tiny association between facebook mentions and citations held for every single PLoS journal (Pearson r ≤ .09, Spearman rho ≤ .08).

plos-all_fb-versus-citations

In conclusion, twitter can be used for promoting your scientific work in an age of increased competition for scientific reading time (Renear & Palmer, 2009). Facebook, on the other hand, can be used for procrastinating.

Wanna explore the data set yourself? I made a web-app which you can use in RStudio or in your web browser. Have fun with it and tell me what you find.

— — —
Peoples BK, Midway SR, Sackett D, Lynch A, & Cooney PB (2016). Twitter Predicts Citation Rates of Ecological Research. PloS one, 11 (11) PMID: 27835703

Renear AH, & Palmer CL (2009). Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing. Science (New York, N.Y.), 325 (5942), 828-32 PMID: 19679805

How Long Should a Scientific Publication be?

In one word: short. In two words: it depends.

A neuroscience expert faces the challenge of 100 new neuroscience articles being published on a daily basis. S/he will never be able to read all that. So, what can be done to get your own publication known to the community?

.
1) Know the reader and his/her lack of time
Science reading has become shorter as more and more articles get read per year but less time is spent per article. Within the last 30 years the articles read nearly doubled whereas the time spent per article nearly halved. Renear and colleagues (2009) call this a trend towards ‘literature surfing’ at the expense of careful reading.
Mind that this change in reading behaviour is not enough to compensate for the increase in scientific output. Over the same time span, while the number of read articles nearly doubled, the number of new science publications per year more than doubled. In a new and edgy field like neuroscience this trend is even more pronounced. Here, the output nearly quadrupled (see my earlier post).
scientis; reading; time; efficiency, time pressure
Scientists read more (orange) in less time (blue). This is efficient but is it good?
.
2) Follow publication trends
Perhaps as a result of the reduction in time spent reading each article, scientific publications have become shorter. To give an example, below I plot all reviews and review-like articles published in a well known neuroscience journal (Nature Reviews Neuroscience, as of April 2012). As can be seen easily, there is a significant trend to keep the reference sections shorter and shorter.
references in Nature Reviews Neuroscience
References in Nature Reviews Neuroscience: less and less and less
.
[Update 23/12/2016: this figure has the chronological order of reviews backwards. Reviews in NRN are actually getting longer and longer.]
3) Decide between efficiency and effectiveness
Efficiency: how much more do I get out of a long cumbersome article compared to a short one?
In terms of citations per page, the answer is nothing. Stanek posted a semi-humorous paper on arXiv reporting citations per publication page in the field of Astronomy. Between six and 50 pages there is not much influence of page count. One may call these papers normal articles. However, anything longer will reduce the citations added with each additional page. Curiously, anything shorter will actually increase it. The most efficient paper is 4 pages long and gathers around 16 citations, i.e. 4 citations per page.
Haslam (2010) did a similar analysis in Psychology. He compared short report formats with longer article formats and found reports to usually have a higher per page citation count than their longer cousins.
Effectiveness: how do I maximize the citations my publication can get?
Go for long articles. Stanek found articles around 50 pages long to receive the most citations. Haslam found longer article formats to have significantly higher mean citation counts.
If you strive for efficiency, go for a short report. They receive more impact per page. If you strive for effect, go for a long article. They receive more impact per publication.
.
4) A cautionary note: consider scientific progress
While shorter articles do allow for the faster dissemination of interesting findings, they offer less space to include replications of experimental effects and this can lead to more false positives making it into the field.
Furthermore, the field as such, i.e. some sort of accumulated understanding of what is known in different areas, can disintegrate if articles are not cross-linked through references. Ledgerwood & Sherman (2012) warn of an increased risk to rediscover what we already know because of a trend towards bite-size publications: science as a repetitive rather than cumulative process.
.
In a career sense the most worthwhile publications are the short ones. At least they will get read and cited efficiently. However, later in your career – if you haven’t succumbed to cynicism – you may actually care about science or be hopeful to make it in an academic career requiring a few highly cited articles. In this phase longer, more integrative articles are probably worth it.
Like with so many other phenomena, fast career-minded science is not necessarily good science.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Haslam, N. (2010). Bite-Size Science: Relative Impact of Short Article Formats Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5 (3), 263-264 DOI: 10.1177/1745691610369466

Ledgerwood, A., & Sherman, J. (2012). Short, Sweet, and Problematic? The Rise of the Short Report in Psychological Science Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (1), 60-66 DOI: 10.1177/1745691611427304

Renear AH, & Palmer CL (2009). Strategic reading, ontologies, and the future of scientific publishing. Science (New York, N.Y.), 325 (5942), 828-32 PMID: 19679805

Krzysztof Zbigniew Stanek (2008). How long should an astronomical paper be to increase its Impact? arXiv arXiv: 0809.0692v1

——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

ResearchBlogging.orgIf you liked this post, you may also like:

Neuroscience is forgetting.

.

.

Figures:

1) from Renear & Palmer, 2009, p. 829

2) self-generated

——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

If you you were not entirely indifferent to this post, please consider to leave a comment.