ArticlePeerJ2018
Tweet success? Scientific communication correlates with increased citations in Ecology and Conservation.
Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What are the variables associated with Altmetric scores?Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Title, abstract and keywords: a practical guide to maximize the visibility and impact of academic papers.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Assessing Brazilian protected areas through social media: Insights from 10 years of public interest and engagement.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Elevating the impact of conservation physiology by building a community devoted to excellence, transparency, ethics, integrity and mutual respect.Conservation physiology · 2022Article
- Going rogue: what scientists can learn about Twitter communication from "alt" government accounts.PeerJ · 2021Article
- A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Views: A Triple Crossover Trial of Visual Abstracts to Examine Their Impact on Research Dissemination.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- The growth of social media in science: Social media has evolved from a mere communication channel to an integral tool for discussion and research collaboration.EMBO reports · 2020Article
- Promoting the use of social networks in pneumonia.Pneumonia (Nathan Qld.) · 2020Review
- Science and Social Media.Stem cells translational medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Science communication is seen as critical for the disciplines of ecology and conservation, where research products are often used to shape policy and decision making. Scientists are increasing their online media communication, via social media and news. Such media engagement has been thought to influence or predict traditional metrics of scholarship, such as citation rates. Here, we measure the association between citation rates and the Altmetric Attention Score-an indicator of the amount and reach of the attention an article has received-along with other forms of bibliometric performance (year published, journal impact factor, and article type). We found that Attention Score was positively correlated with citation rates. However, in recent years, we detected increasing media exposure did not relate to the equivalent citations as in earlier years; signalling a diminishing return on investment. Citations correlated with journal impact factors up to ∼13, but then plateaued, demonstrating that maximizing citations does not require publishing in the highest-impact journals. We conclude that ecology and conservation researchers can increase exposure of their research through social media engagement and, simultaneously, enhance their performance under traditional measures of scholarly activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.