Communities of attention networks: introducing qualitative and conversational perspectives for altmetrics

Neurofeedback on twitter: Evaluation of the scientific credibility and communication about the technique

Neurofeedback is a popular technique to induce neuroplasticity with a controversial reputation. The public discourse on neurofeedback, as a therapeutic and neuroenhancement technique, encompasses scientific communication, therapeutic expectations and outcomes, as well as complementary and alternative practices. We investigated twitter publications from 2010 to 2022 on the keyword "neurofeedback". A total of over 138 k tweets were obtained, which originated from over 42 k different users. The communication flow in the neurofeedback community is mainly unidirectional and non-interactive. Analysis of hashtags revealed application fields, therapy provider and neuroenhancement to be the most popular contents in neurofeedback communication. A group of 1221 productive users was identified, in which clinicians, entrepreneurs, broadcasters, and scientists contribute. We identified reactions to critical publications in the twitter traffic and an increase in the number of tweets by academic users which suggest an increase in the interest on the scientific credibility of neurofeedback. More intense scientific communication on neurofeedback in twitter may contribute to promote a more realistic view on challenges and advances regarding good scientific practice of neurofeedback.

Measuring altmetric events: the need for longer observation period and article level computations

Purpose

This paper aims to explore the impact of the data observation period on the computation of altmetric measures like velocity index (VI) and half-life. Furthermore, it also attempts to determine whether article-level computations are better than computations on the whole of the data for computing such measures.

Design/methodology/approach

The complete publication records for the year 2016 indexed in Web of Science and their altmetric data (original tweets) obtained from PlumX are obtained and analysed. The creation date of articles is taken from Crossref. Two time-dependent variables, namely, half-life and VI are computed. The altmetric measures are computed for all articles at different observation points, and by using whole group as well as article-level averaging.

Findings

The results show that use of longer observation period significantly changes the values of different altmetric measures computed. Furthermore, use of article-level delineation is advocated for computing different measures for a more accurate representation of the true values for the article distribution.

Research limitations/implications

The analytical results show that using different observation periods change the measured values of the time-related altmetric measures. It is suggested that longer observation period should be used for appropriate measurement of altmetric measures. Furthermore, the use of article-level delineation for computing the measures is advocated as a more accurate method to capture the true values of such measures.

Practical implications

The research work suggests that altmetric mentions accrue for a longer period than the commonly believed short life span and therefore the altmetric measurements should not be limited to observation of early accrued data only.

Social implications

The present study indicates that use of altmetric measures for research evaluation or other purposes should be based on data for a longer observation period and article-level delineation may be preferred. It contradicts the common belief that tweet accumulation about scholarly articles decay quickly.

Originality/value

Several studies have shown that altmetric data correlate well with citations and hence early altmetric counts can be used to predict future citations. Inspired by these findings, majority of such monitoring and measuring exercises have focused mainly on capturing immediate altmetric event data for articles just after the publication of the paper. This paper demonstrates the impact of the observation period and article-level aggregation on such computations and suggests to use a longer observation period and article-level delineation. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first such study of its kind and presents novel findings.

The role of blogs and news sites in science communication during the COVID-19 pandemic

We present a brief review of literature related to blogs and news sites; our focus is on publications related to COVID-19. We primarily focus on the role of blogs and news sites in disseminating research on COVID-19 to the wider public, that is knowledge transfer channels. The review is for researchers and practitioners in scholarly communication and social media studies of science who would like to find out more about the role of blogs and news sites during the COVID-19 pandemic. From our review, we see that blogs and news sites are widely used as scholarly communication channels and are closely related to each other. That is, the same research might be reported in blogs and news sites at the same time. They both play a particular role in higher education and research systems, due to the increasing blogging and science communication activity of researchers and higher education institutions (HEIs). We conclude that these two media types have been playing an important role for a long time in disseminating research, which even increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. This can be verified, for example, through knowledge graphs on COVID-19 publications that contain a significant amount of scientific publications mentioned in blogs and news sites.

Measuring serendipity with altmetrics and randomness

Many discussions on serendipitous research discovery stress its unfortunate immeasurability. This unobservability may be due to paradoxes that arise out of the usual conceptualizations of serendipity, such as “accidental” versus “goal-oriented” discovery, or “useful” versus “useless” finds. Departing from a different distinction drawn from information theory—bibliometric redundancy and bibliometric variety—this paper argues otherwise: Serendipity is measurable, namely with the help of altmetrics, but only if the condition of highest bibliometric variety, or randomness, obtains. Randomness means that the publication is recommended without any biases of citation counts, journal impact, publication year, author reputation, semantic proximity, etc. Thus, serendipity must be at play in a measurable way if a paper is recommended randomly, and if users react to that recommendation (observable via altmetrics). A possible design for a serendipity-measuring device would be a Twitter bot that regularly recommends a random scientific publication from a huge corpus to capture the user interactions via altmetrics. Other than its implications for the concept of serendipity, this paper also contributes to a better understanding of altmetrics’ use cases: not only do altmetrics serve the measurement of impact, the facilitation of impact, and the facilitation of serendipity, but also the measurement of serendipity.

User engagement with scholarly tweets of scientific papers: a large-scale and cross-disciplinary analysis

This study investigates the extent to which scholarly tweets of scientific papers are engaged with by Twitter users through four types of user engagement behaviors, i.e., liking, retweeting, quoting, and replying. Based on a sample consisting of 7 million scholarly tweets of Web of Science papers, our results show that likes is the most prevalent engagement metric, covering 44% of scholarly tweets, followed by retweets (36%), whereas quotes and replies are only present for 9% and 7% of all scholarly tweets, respectively. From a disciplinary point of view, scholarly tweets in the field of Social Sciences and Humanities are more likely to trigger user engagement over other subject fields. The presence of user engagement is more associated with other Twitter-based factors (e.g., number of mentioned users in tweets and number of followers of users) than with science-based factors (e.g., citations and Mendeley readers of tweeted papers). Building on these findings, this study sheds light on the possibility to apply user engagement metrics in measuring deeper levels of Twitter reception of scholarly information.

Evaluación de la investigación científica: mejorando las políticas científicas en Latinoamérica

Este artículo busca identificar criterios e indicadores de evaluación científica, que permitan mejorar la forma en que las agencias de financiación, las instituciones académicas y otros grupos evalúan la calidad e impacto de la investigación. Para ello, se realiza una revisión bibliográfica, basada en artículos sobre políticas de evaluación de la investigación científica y agendas internacionales implementadas en los últimos años (principalmente en el Reino Unido, Estados Unidos, Australia, China y Latinoamérica). Los resultados indican que no existe un solo método de evaluación científica, ya que ningún indicador es absoluto. Cada investigación posee actores distintos que deben ser considerados y se debe valorar la investigación en su contexto. Se recomienda un sistema de evaluación mixto, que incorpore criterios cuantitativos y cualitativos, pero que reconozca los límites y alcances de ambos y también de cada disciplina.

Who tweets climate change papers? investigating publics of research through users’ descriptions

As social issues like climate change become increasingly salient, digital traces left by scholarly documents can be used to assess their reach outside of academia. Our research examine who shared climate change research papers on Twitter by looking at the expressions used in profile descriptions. We categorized users in eight categories (academia, communication, political, professional, personal, organization, bots and publishers) associated to specific expressions. Results indicate how diverse publics may be represented in the communication of scholarly documents on Twitter. Supplementing our word detection analysis with qualitative assessments of the results, we highlight how the presence of unique or multiple categorizations in textual Twitter descriptions provides evidence of the publics of research in specific contexts. Our results show a more substantial communication by academics and organizations for papers published in 2016, whereas the general public comparatively participated more in 2015. Overall, there is significant participation of publics outside of academia in the communication of climate change research articles on Twitter, although the extent to which these publics participate varies between individual papers. This means that papers circulate in specific communities which need to be assessed to understand the reach of research on social media. Furthermore, the flexibility of our method provide means for research assessment that consider the contextuality and plurality of publics involved on Twitter.

A typology of research discovery tools

There has been a proliferation of new research discovery tools that aid scientists in finding relevant publications. To obtain a general overview of this development, this article generates a conceptual typology of all possible research discovery tools by drawing from the information-theoretical concepts of redundancy/variety. Bibliometric links between scholarly publications can thus exhibit ‘redundancy’ (i.e. expectable linkages between academic works) or ‘variety’ (i.e. original co-occurrence patterns). On the redundancy-reproducing end of the typology are machines that harness extant co-citations or keyword queries, such as academic search engines and paper recommender systems. The variety end of the spectrum harbours services that enable categorial browsing or that suggest publications randomly, such as journals’ tables of contents or random paper bots. The typology has implications for understanding how the design of research discovery platforms may ultimately shape aggregate citational networks of science.