IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0241723.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Could early tweet counts predict later citation counts? A gender study in Life Sciences and Biomedicine (2014–2016)

Author

Listed:
  • Tahereh Dehdarirad

Abstract

In this study, it was investigated whether early tweets counts could differentially benefit female and male (first, last) authors in terms of the later citation counts received. The data for this study comprised 47,961 articles in the research area of Life Sciences & Biomedicine from 2014–2016, retrieved from Web of Science’s Medline. For each article, the number of received citations per year was downloaded from WOS, while the number of received tweets per year was obtained from PlumX. Using the hurdle regression model, I compared the number of received citations by female and male (first, last) authored papers and then I investigated whether early tweet counts could predict the later citation counts received by female and male (first, last) authored papers. In the regression models, I controlled for several important factors that were investigated in previous research in relation to citation counts, gender or Altmetrics. These included journal impact (SNIP), number of authors, open access, research funding, topic of an article, international collaboration, lay summary, F1000 Score and mega journal. The findings showed that the percentage of papers with male authors in first or last authorship positions was higher than that for female authors. However, female first and last-authored papers had a small but significant citation advantage of 4.7% and 5.5% compared to male-authored papers. The findings also showed that irrespective of whether the factors were included in regression models or not, early tweet counts had a weak positive and significant association with the later citations counts (3.3%) and the probability of a paper being cited (21.1%). Regarding gender, the findings showed that when all variables were controlled, female (first, last) authored papers had a small citation advantage of 3.7% and 4.2% in comparison to the male authored papers for the same number of tweets.

Suggested Citation

  • Tahereh Dehdarirad, 2020. "Could early tweet counts predict later citation counts? A gender study in Life Sciences and Biomedicine (2014–2016)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0241723
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241723
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241723
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241723&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0241723?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mike Thelwall & Kayvan Kousha, 2014. "Academia.edu: Social network or Academic Network?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(4), pages 721-731, April.
    2. Shubhanshu Mishra & Brent D Fegley & Jana Diesner & Vetle I Torvik, 2018. "Self-citation is the hallmark of productive authors, of any gender," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Zeileis, Achim & Kleiber, Christian & Jackman, Simon, 2008. "Regression Models for Count Data in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 27(i08).
    4. Zahedi, Zohreh & Haustein, Stefanie, 2018. "On the relationships between bibliographic characteristics of scientific documents and citation and Mendeley readership counts: A large-scale analysis of Web of Science publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 191-202.
    5. Fereshteh Didegah & Timothy D. Bowman & Kim Holmberg, 2018. "On the differences between citations and altmetrics: An investigation of factors driving altmetrics versus citations for finnish articles," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(6), pages 832-843, June.
    6. Stefanie Haustein & Isabella Peters & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Mike Thelwall & Vincent Larivière, 2014. "Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(4), pages 656-669, April.
    7. Hajar Sotudeh & Tahereh Dehdarirad & Jonathan Freer, 2018. "Gender differences in scientific productivity and visibility in core neurosurgery journals: Citations and social media metrics," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 262-269.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ying Guo & Xiantao Xiao, 2022. "Author-level altmetrics for the evaluation of Chinese scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 973-990, February.
    2. Tahereh Dehdarirad & Kalle Karlsson, 2021. "News media attention in Climate Action: latent topics and open access," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 8109-8128, September.
    3. Kong, Ling & Wang, Dongbo, 2020. "Comparison of citations and attention of cover and non-cover papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    4. Chieh Liu & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2022. "Exploring the relationships between altmetric counts and citations of papers in different academic fields based on co-occurrence analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4939-4958, August.
    5. Houqiang Yu & Yue Wang & Shah Hussain & Haoyang Song, 2023. "Towards a better understanding of Facebook Altmetrics in LIS field: assessing the characteristics of involved paper, user and post," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 3147-3170, May.
    6. Mojisola Erdt & Aarthy Nagarajan & Sei-Ching Joanna Sin & Yin-Leng Theng, 2016. "Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1117-1166, November.
    7. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall & Stefanie Haustein & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "Who reads research articles? An altmetrics analysis of Mendeley user categories," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(9), pages 1832-1846, September.
    8. Mousumi Karmakar & Sumit Kumar Banshal & Vivek Kumar Singh, 2020. "Does presence of social media plugins in a journal website result in higher social media attention of its research publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2103-2143, September.
    9. Zhichao Fang & Rodrigo Costas & Paul Wouters, 2022. "User engagement with scholarly tweets of scientific papers: a large-scale and cross-disciplinary analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4523-4546, August.
    10. ↓Xia Peng & Zequan Xiong & Li Yang, 2024. "Can document characteristics affect motivations for literature usage?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(6), pages 3543-3563, June.
    11. Lin Zhang & Yuanyuan Shang & Ying Huang & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2022. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 145-179, January.
    12. Totterman, Stephen, 2021. "Vehicle-based recreation and compliance for three beaches in northern New South Wales," OSF Preprints ja8h6, Center for Open Science.
    13. Jong-Hyun Kim & Yong-Gil Lee, 2021. "Factors of Collaboration Affecting the Performance of Alternative Energy Patents in South Korea from 2010 to 2017," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-25, September.
    14. Olga Alipova & Lada Litvinova & Andrey Lovakov & Maria Yudkevich, 2018. "Inbreds And Non-Inbreds Among Russian Academics: Short-Term Similarity And Long-Term Differences In Productivity," HSE Working papers WP BRP 48/EDU/2018, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    15. Christian Kleiber & Achim Zeileis, 2016. "Visualizing Count Data Regressions Using Rootograms," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 70(3), pages 296-303, July.
    16. Hui Li & Weishu Liu, 2020. "Same same but different: self-citations identified through Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2723-2732, September.
    17. Sewando, Ponsian T. & Mdoe, N. Y. S. & Mutabazi, K. D. S, 2011. "Farmers’ preferential choice decisions to alternative cassava value chain strands in Morogoro rural district, Tanzania," MPRA Paper 29797, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Yang Zhang, 2023. "The effect of social media knowledge cascade: an analysis of scientific papers diffusion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5169-5195, September.
    19. Merl, Robert & Palan, Stefan & Schmidt, Dominik & Stöckl, Thomas, 2023. "Insider trading regulation and trader migration," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    20. Isidro F. Aguillo, 2020. "Altmetrics of the Open Access Institutional Repositories: a webometrics approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1181-1192, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0241723. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.