在Twitter上讨论的图书馆情报学论文:一种基于网络的测量公众注意力的新方法

R. Haunschild, L. Leydesdorff, L. Bornmann
{"title":"在Twitter上讨论的图书馆情报学论文:一种基于网络的测量公众注意力的新方法","authors":"R. Haunschild, L. Leydesdorff, L. Bornmann","doi":"10.2478/jdis-2020-0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose In recent years, one can witness a trend in research evaluation to measure the impact on society or attention to research by society (beyond science). We address the following question: can Twitter be meaningfully used for the mapping of public and scientific discourses? Design/methodology/approach Recently, Haunschild et al. (2019) introduced a new network-oriented approach for using Twitter data in research evaluation. Such a procedure can be used to measure the public discussion around a specific field or topic. In this study, we used all papers published in the Web of Science (WoS, Clarivate Analytics) subject category Information Science & Library Science to explore the publicly discussed topics from the area of library and information science (LIS) in comparison to the topics used by scholars in their publications in this area. Findings The results show that LIS papers are represented rather well on Twitter. Similar topics appear in the networks of author keywords of all LIS papers, not tweeted LIS papers, and tweeted LIS papers. The networks of the author keywords of all LIS papers and not tweeted LIS papers are most similar to each other. Research limitations Only papers published since 2011 with DOI were analyzed. Practical implications Although Twitter data do not seem to be useful for quantitative research evaluation, it seems that Twitter data can be used in a more qualitative way for mapping of public and scientific discourses. Originality/value This study explores a rather new methodology for comparing public and scientific discourses.","PeriodicalId":92237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)","volume":"5 1","pages":"17 - 5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Library and Information Science Papers Discussed on Twitter: A new Network-based Approach for Measuring Public Attention\",\"authors\":\"R. Haunschild, L. Leydesdorff, L. Bornmann\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/jdis-2020-0017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Purpose In recent years, one can witness a trend in research evaluation to measure the impact on society or attention to research by society (beyond science). We address the following question: can Twitter be meaningfully used for the mapping of public and scientific discourses? Design/methodology/approach Recently, Haunschild et al. (2019) introduced a new network-oriented approach for using Twitter data in research evaluation. Such a procedure can be used to measure the public discussion around a specific field or topic. In this study, we used all papers published in the Web of Science (WoS, Clarivate Analytics) subject category Information Science & Library Science to explore the publicly discussed topics from the area of library and information science (LIS) in comparison to the topics used by scholars in their publications in this area. Findings The results show that LIS papers are represented rather well on Twitter. Similar topics appear in the networks of author keywords of all LIS papers, not tweeted LIS papers, and tweeted LIS papers. The networks of the author keywords of all LIS papers and not tweeted LIS papers are most similar to each other. Research limitations Only papers published since 2011 with DOI were analyzed. Practical implications Although Twitter data do not seem to be useful for quantitative research evaluation, it seems that Twitter data can be used in a more qualitative way for mapping of public and scientific discourses. Originality/value This study explores a rather new methodology for comparing public and scientific discourses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"17 - 5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2020-0017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2020-0017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

摘要目的近年来,研究评价出现了一种趋势,即衡量研究对社会的影响或社会(科学以外)对研究的关注。我们要解决以下问题:Twitter能被有意义地用于绘制公共和科学话语的地图吗?设计/方法/方法最近,Haunschild等人(2019)引入了一种新的面向网络的方法,用于在研究评估中使用Twitter数据。这样的程序可以用来衡量围绕特定领域或主题的公众讨论。在这项研究中,我们使用了所有发表在Web of Science (WoS, Clarivate Analytics)主题类别“信息科学与图书馆科学”上的论文,以探索图书馆与信息科学(LIS)领域的公开讨论主题,并将其与学者在该领域出版物中使用的主题进行比较。结果表明,美国论文在Twitter上的代表性相当好。相似的主题出现在所有LIS论文的作者关键词网络中,未推的LIS论文中,推的LIS论文中。所有LIS论文和未推文的LIS论文的作者关键词网络最相似。仅分析2011年以来发表的DOI为DOI的论文。虽然Twitter数据似乎对定量研究评估没有用处,但Twitter数据似乎可以以更定性的方式用于公共和科学话语的映射。本研究探索了一种比较公共话语和科学话语的新方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Library and Information Science Papers Discussed on Twitter: A new Network-based Approach for Measuring Public Attention
Abstract Purpose In recent years, one can witness a trend in research evaluation to measure the impact on society or attention to research by society (beyond science). We address the following question: can Twitter be meaningfully used for the mapping of public and scientific discourses? Design/methodology/approach Recently, Haunschild et al. (2019) introduced a new network-oriented approach for using Twitter data in research evaluation. Such a procedure can be used to measure the public discussion around a specific field or topic. In this study, we used all papers published in the Web of Science (WoS, Clarivate Analytics) subject category Information Science & Library Science to explore the publicly discussed topics from the area of library and information science (LIS) in comparison to the topics used by scholars in their publications in this area. Findings The results show that LIS papers are represented rather well on Twitter. Similar topics appear in the networks of author keywords of all LIS papers, not tweeted LIS papers, and tweeted LIS papers. The networks of the author keywords of all LIS papers and not tweeted LIS papers are most similar to each other. Research limitations Only papers published since 2011 with DOI were analyzed. Practical implications Although Twitter data do not seem to be useful for quantitative research evaluation, it seems that Twitter data can be used in a more qualitative way for mapping of public and scientific discourses. Originality/value This study explores a rather new methodology for comparing public and scientific discourses.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial board publication strategy and acceptance rates in Turkish national journals Multimodal sentiment analysis for social media contents during public emergencies Perspectives from a publishing ethics and research integrity team for required improvements Build neural network models to identify and correct news headlines exaggerating obesity-related scientific findings An author credit allocation method with improved distinguishability and robustness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1