主要普通医学期刊使用Facebook和Twitter的初步调查

Pub Date : 2014-07-21 DOI:10.5596/C2012-010
M. Boulos, P. F. Anderson
{"title":"主要普通医学期刊使用Facebook和Twitter的初步调查","authors":"M. Boulos, P. F. Anderson","doi":"10.5596/C2012-010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: This study is the first to chart the use of Facebook and Twitter by peer-reviewed medical journals. Methods: We selected the top 25 general medicine journals on the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report (JCR) list. We surveyed their Facebook and Twitter presences and scanned their Web sites for any Facebook and (or) Twitter features as of November 2011. Results/Discussion: 20 of 25 journals had some sort of Facebook presence, with 11 also having a Twitter presence. Total ‘Likes’ across all of the Facebook pages for journals with a Facebook presence were 321,997, of which 259, 902 came from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) alone. The total numbers of Twitter ‘Followers’ were smaller by comparison when compiled across all surveyed journals. ‘Likes’ and ‘Followers’ are not the equivalents of total accesses but provide some proxy measure for impact and popularity. Those journals in our sample making best use of the open sharing nature of social media are closed-access; with the leading open access journals on the list lagging behind by comparison. We offer a partial interpretation for this and discuss other findings of our survey, provide some recommendations to journals wanting to use social media, and finally present some future research directions. Conclusions: Journals should not underestimate the potential of social media as a powerful means of reaching out to their readership.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5596/C2012-010","citationCount":"23","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preliminary survey of leading general medicine journals’ use of Facebook and Twitter\",\"authors\":\"M. Boulos, P. F. Anderson\",\"doi\":\"10.5596/C2012-010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: This study is the first to chart the use of Facebook and Twitter by peer-reviewed medical journals. Methods: We selected the top 25 general medicine journals on the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report (JCR) list. We surveyed their Facebook and Twitter presences and scanned their Web sites for any Facebook and (or) Twitter features as of November 2011. Results/Discussion: 20 of 25 journals had some sort of Facebook presence, with 11 also having a Twitter presence. Total ‘Likes’ across all of the Facebook pages for journals with a Facebook presence were 321,997, of which 259, 902 came from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) alone. The total numbers of Twitter ‘Followers’ were smaller by comparison when compiled across all surveyed journals. ‘Likes’ and ‘Followers’ are not the equivalents of total accesses but provide some proxy measure for impact and popularity. Those journals in our sample making best use of the open sharing nature of social media are closed-access; with the leading open access journals on the list lagging behind by comparison. We offer a partial interpretation for this and discuss other findings of our survey, provide some recommendations to journals wanting to use social media, and finally present some future research directions. Conclusions: Journals should not underestimate the potential of social media as a powerful means of reaching out to their readership.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-07-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5596/C2012-010\",\"citationCount\":\"23\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5596/C2012-010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5596/C2012-010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

摘要

目的:这项研究首次绘制了同行评议医学期刊对Facebook和Twitter使用情况的图表。方法:选取Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report (JCR)中排名前25位的普通医学期刊。我们调查了他们在Facebook和Twitter上的表现,并在2011年11月之前扫描了他们的网站上是否有Facebook和(或)Twitter的功能。结果/讨论:25个期刊中有20个有某种形式的Facebook存在,11个也有Twitter存在。Facebook上所有期刊页面的“赞”总数为321,997,其中仅《新英格兰医学杂志》(NEJM)就有259,902个。相比之下,所有被调查期刊的Twitter“关注者”总数要少一些。“喜欢”和“关注”并不等同于总访问量,但提供了一些影响和受欢迎程度的代理衡量标准。在我们的样本中,那些充分利用社交媒体开放分享特性的期刊是封闭获取的;相比之下,名单上领先的开放获取期刊落后了。我们对此进行了部分解释,并讨论了我们调查的其他发现,为想要使用社交媒体的期刊提供了一些建议,最后提出了一些未来的研究方向。结论:期刊不应低估社交媒体作为接触读者的强大手段的潜力。
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
Preliminary survey of leading general medicine journals’ use of Facebook and Twitter
Aim: This study is the first to chart the use of Facebook and Twitter by peer-reviewed medical journals. Methods: We selected the top 25 general medicine journals on the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report (JCR) list. We surveyed their Facebook and Twitter presences and scanned their Web sites for any Facebook and (or) Twitter features as of November 2011. Results/Discussion: 20 of 25 journals had some sort of Facebook presence, with 11 also having a Twitter presence. Total ‘Likes’ across all of the Facebook pages for journals with a Facebook presence were 321,997, of which 259, 902 came from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) alone. The total numbers of Twitter ‘Followers’ were smaller by comparison when compiled across all surveyed journals. ‘Likes’ and ‘Followers’ are not the equivalents of total accesses but provide some proxy measure for impact and popularity. Those journals in our sample making best use of the open sharing nature of social media are closed-access; with the leading open access journals on the list lagging behind by comparison. We offer a partial interpretation for this and discuss other findings of our survey, provide some recommendations to journals wanting to use social media, and finally present some future research directions. Conclusions: Journals should not underestimate the potential of social media as a powerful means of reaching out to their readership.
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
×
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