One way to assess the value of scientific research is to measure the attention it receives on social media. While previous research has mostly focused on the "number of mentions" of scientific research on social media, the current study uses "topic networks" to measure public attention to scientific research on Twitter. Topic networks in this research are the "co-occurring author keywords" in scientific publications and the "co-occurring hashtags" in the tweets mentioning scientific publications. Since bots (automated social media accounts) may significantly influence public attention, this study also investigates whether the topic networks based on the tweets by all accounts (bot and non-bot accounts) differ from the topic networks by non-bot accounts. Our analysis is based on a set of opioid scientific publications from 2011 to 2019 and the tweets associated with them. We use co-occurrence network analysis to generate topic networks. Results indicated that the public has mostly used generic terms to discuss opioid publications. Results confirmed that topic networks provide a legitimate method to visualize public discussions of (health-related) scientific publications, and how the public discusses (health-related) scientific research differently from the scientific community. There was a significant overlap between the topic networks based on the tweets by all accounts and non-bot accounts. This result indicates that in generating topic networks, bot accounts do not need to be excluded as they have negligible impact on the results.
翻译:评估科学研究价值的一种方式是衡量其在社交媒体上受到的关注程度。虽然先前的研究主要侧重于社交媒体科学研究的“提及次数”,但当前研究使用“主题网络”衡量公众对Twitter上科学研究的关注程度。本研究的主题网络是科学出版物中的“共生作者关键词”和提及科学出版物的推特中的“共生标签”。由于bots(自动社交媒体账户)可能极大地影响公众的注意力,本研究还调查基于所有账户(机器和非机器人账户)的推文的主题网络是否与非机器人账户的专题网络不同。我们的分析基于2011至2019年一系列类阿片科学出版物以及与这些出版物相关的推文。我们使用共生网络分析来创建主题网络。结果显示公众大多使用通用术语讨论类阿片出版物。研究结果证实,主题网络为公众讨论(与健康有关的)科学出版物提供了合理的方法,公众讨论(与健康有关的)科学研究网络与非机器人账户的科学研究结果如何不同。我们的分析基于2011至2019年的一系列类阿片科学出版物以及与其相关的推文。我们使用共生网络分析的结果显示,这个主题之间有很大的重叠。