ArticleJournal of informetrics2021
Breaking community boundary: Comparing academic and social communication preferences regarding global pandemics.
Article in Journal of informetrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fine-grained detection on the public's multi-dimensional communication preferences in emergency events.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Expedited editorial decision in COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of informetrics · 2023Article
- Analysis of Sustainable Communication Patterns during the Telework Period in Western Romanian Corporations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The global spread of COVID-19 has caused pandemics to be widely discussed. This is evident in the large number of scientific articles and the amount of user-generated content on social media. This paper aims to compare academic communication and social communication about the pandemic from the perspective of communication preference differences. It aims to provide information for the ongoing research on global pandemics, thereby eliminating knowledge barriers and information inequalities between the academic and the social communities. First, we collected the full text and the metadata of pandemic-related articles and Twitter data mentioning the articles. Second, we extracted and analyzed the topics and sentiment tendencies of the articles and related tweets. Finally, we conducted pandemic-related differential analysis on the academic community and the social community. We mined the resulting data to generate pandemic communication preferences (e.g., information needs, attitude tendencies) of researchers and the public, respectively. The research results from 50,338 articles and 927,266 corresponding tweets mentioning the articles revealed communication differences about global pandemics between the academic and the social communities regarding the consistency of research recognition and the preferences for particular research topics. The analysis of large-scale pandemic-related tweets also confirmed the communication preference differences between the two communities.
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.