ArticlePloS one2018
Academic information on Twitter: A user survey.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use Patterns and Challenges of the Social Media Platform X Among Physiotherapists in Saudi Arabia: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Differences in psychologists' cognitive traits are associated with scientific divides.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Food Access in New York City During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Social Media Monitoring Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Association of Twitter author Altmetric patterns with research impact in ophthalmology.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Assessing the visibility and public engagement of bone marrow and stem cell transplantation research: An altmetric analysis.Heliyon · 2025Article
- Perceived impact of physiotherapy-related debates on the social platform "X" on physiotherapists' professional development and knowledge acquisition: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Observational
- Using Twitter (X) to Mobilize Knowledge for First Contact Physiotherapists: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Assessing Brazilian protected areas through social media: Insights from 10 years of public interest and engagement.PloS one · 2023Article
- Why are medical research articles tweeted? The news value perspective.Scientometrics · 2023Article
- Do Prospective Intent and Established Metrics Correlate with Journal Impact Factor in Musculoskeletal Physical Therapy Trials?: A Secondary Analysis of A Methodological Review.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2022Article
- Disseminating implementation science: Describing the impact of animations shared via social media.PloS one · 2022Article
- Are patents linked on Twitter? A case study of Google patents.Scientometrics · 2022Article
- Reach and Power of Physician-Initiated Tweets in a Twitter Inflammatory Bowel Disease Community.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2021Article
- Social Media for Scholarly Communication in Central Asia and Its Neighbouring Countries.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Twitter as a Tool to Spread Communication Regarding Genitourinary Cancers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Kidney cancer (Clifton, Va.) · 2021Article
- Quantifying and contextualizing the impact of bioRxiv preprints through automated social media audience segmentation.PLoS biology · 2020Article
- Social Media Coverage of Scientific Articles Immediately After Publication Predicts Subsequent Citations - #SoME_Impact Score: Observational Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Librarian integration into health care conferences: a case report.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2020Article
- The Kardashian Index of Cardiologists: Celebrities or Experts?JACC. Case reports · 2020Article
- Social media for research, education and practice in rheumatology.Rheumatology international · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although counts of tweets citing academic papers are used as an informal indicator of interest, little is known about who tweets academic papers and who uses Twitter to find scholarly information. Without knowing this, it is difficult to draw useful conclusions from a publication being frequently tweeted. This study surveyed 1,912 users that have tweeted journal articles to ask about their scholarly-related Twitter uses. Almost half of the respondents (45%) did not work in academia, despite the sample probably being biased towards academics. Twitter was used most by people with a social science or humanities background. People tend to leverage social ties on Twitter to find information rather than searching for relevant tweets. Twitter is used in academia to acquire and share real-time information and to develop connections with others. Motivations for using Twitter vary by discipline, occupation, and employment sector, but not much by gender. These factors also influence the sharing of different types of academic information. This study provides evidence that Twitter plays a significant role in the discovery of scholarly information and cross-disciplinary knowledge spreading. Most importantly, the large numbers of non-academic users support the claims of those using tweet counts as evidence for the non-academic impacts of scholarly research.
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.