Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37132036›Full record

ArticlePublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2023

Science communication on Twitter: Measuring indicators of engagement and their links to user interaction in communication scholars' Tweet content.

Lars Guenther, Claudia Wilhelm, Corinna Oschatz, Janise Brück

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lars GuentherUniversity of Hamburg, Germany; Stellenbosch University, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-7760-0416
Claudia WilhelmUniversity of Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-8178-1560
Corinna OschatzUniversity of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3276-5721
Janise BrückLMU Munich, Germany.ORCID 0009-0001-7666-5960

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientists increasingly use Twitter for communication about science. The microblogging service has been heralded for its potential to foster public engagement with science; thus, measuring how engaging, that is dialogue-oriented, tweet content is, has become a relevant research object. Tweet content designed in an engaging, dialogue-oriented way is also supposed to link to user interaction (e.g. liking, retweeting). The present study analyzed content-related and functional indicators of engagement in scientists' tweet content, applying content analysis to original tweets (

Indexed as

Information DisseminationSocial MediaCommunicationHumanscontent analysisscience engagementscientistssocial mediaTwitter

Identifiers

PMID37132036
PMCPMC10552346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.