IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i6d10.1007_s11192-021-03947-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scholarly book publishers as publicity agents for SSH titles on Twitter

Author

Listed:
  • Yajie Wang

    (Dalian University of Technology
    University of Copenhagen)

  • Alesia Zuccala

    (University of Copenhagen)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to examine the presence of scholarly book publishers on Twitter, and tweets about books in 10 SSH disciplines (2014–2018). This included time of tweet relative to the book's publication date and time span of twitter activity. We also investigated the ‘categories of conversation' in publisher tweets, with a focus on hashtags and @-mentions. Data collection involved matching 15,454 unique book titles from the BKCI-Web of Science with tweets retrieved from Altmetrics.com, using ISBNs. This led to a working dataset of n = 6258 books (41%), which had received at least one tweet. Our analyses show that scholarly publishers have been using Twitter more and more over a 5 year period, especially commerical publishers. Commercial publishers are more likely than university presses to have multiple Twitter accounts. Both, though mainly commercial publishers, are active at targeting the Twitter accounts of book authors, book editors, other individuals and universities/institutions/organisations. Whilst re-tweets do not often follow first, or ‘initiator' tweets made by publishers, publisher engagement in general corresponds significantly with other tweets, and contributes to keeping the book active for a longer period on Twitter. Publishers play a key role as promotional agents, particularly when a scholarly title is part of a special offer, relevant to a conference, event or special calendar date, when an author is a prize winner, or if author-agreements have been made in regards to open access book chapters.

Suggested Citation

  • Yajie Wang & Alesia Zuccala, 2021. "Scholarly book publishers as publicity agents for SSH titles on Twitter," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4817-4840, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s11192-021-03947-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03947-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-03947-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-03947-6?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Torres-Salinas, Daniel & Moed, Henk F., 2009. "Library Catalog Analysis as a tool in studies of social sciences and humanities: An exploratory study of published book titles in Economics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 9-26.
    2. Kim Holmberg & Julia Vainio, 2018. "Why do some research articles receive more online attention and higher altmetrics? Reasons for online success according to the authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 435-447, July.
    3. Jorge Mannana-Rodriguez & Elea Giménez-Toledo, 2018. "Specialization and multidisciplinarity of scholarly book publishers: differences between Spanish University Presses and other scholarly publishers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(1), pages 19-30, January.
    4. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall, 2016. "Can Amazon.com reviews help to assess the wider impacts of books?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(3), pages 566-581, March.
    5. Didegah, Fereshteh & Mejlgaard, Niels & Sørensen, Mads P., 2018. "Investigating the quality of interactions and public engagement around scientific papers on Twitter," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 960-971.
    6. Howard D. White & Sebastian K. Boell & Hairong Yu & Mari Davis & Concepción S. Wilson & Fletcher T.H. Cole, 2009. "Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(6), pages 1083-1096, June.
    7. Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Sam Work & Vincent Larivière & Stefanie Haustein, 2017. "Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(9), pages 2037-2062, September.
    8. Kayvan Kousha & Mike Thelwall & Mahshid Abdoli, 2017. "Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(8), pages 2004-2016, August.
    9. Alesia Zuccala & Roberto Cornacchia, 2016. "Data matching, integration, and interoperability for a metric assessment of monographs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 465-484, July.
    10. Zhichao Fang & Rodrigo Costas & Wencan Tian & Xianwen Wang & Paul Wouters, 2020. "An extensive analysis of the presence of altmetric data for Web of Science publications across subject fields and research topics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2519-2549, September.
    11. Howard D. White & Alesia A. Zuccala, 2018. "Libcitations, worldcat, cultural impact, and fame," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(12), pages 1502-1512, December.
    12. Kim Holmberg & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1027-1042, November.
    13. Saeed-Ul Hassan & Mubashir Imran & Uzair Gillani & Naif Radi Aljohani & Timothy D. Bowman & Fereshteh Didegah, 2017. "Measuring social media activity of scientific literature: an exhaustive comparison of scopus and novel altmetrics big data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1037-1057, November.
    14. Vincent Larivière & Stefanie Haustein & Philippe Mongeon, 2015. "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    15. Gorraiz, Juan & Melero-Fuentes, David & Gumpenberger, Christian & Valderrama-Zurián, Juan-Carlos, 2016. "Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in Web of Science and Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 98-109.
    16. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-Garcia & Juan Gorraiz, 2017. "Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1371-1384, December.
    17. Björn Hammarfelt, 2014. "Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1419-1430, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.

    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. Siluo Yang & Xin Xing & Fan Qi & Maria Cláudia Cabrini Grácio, 2021. "Comparison of academic book impact from a disciplinary perspective: an analysis of citations and altmetric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1101-1123, February.
    2. Eleonora Dagienė, 2024. "Mapping scholarly books: library metadata and research assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5689-5714, September.
    3. Zhou, Qingqing & Zhang, Chengzhi, 2021. "Impacts towards a comprehensive assessment of the book impact by integrating multiple evaluation sources," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    4. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Nicolás Robinson-Garcia & Juan Gorraiz, 2017. "Filling the citation gap: measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1371-1384, December.
    5. Ashraf Maleki, 2022. "OCLC library holdings: assessing availability of academic books in libraries in print and electronic compared to citations and altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 991-1020, February.
    6. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado & Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Exploring WorldCat identities as an altmetric information source: a library catalog analysis experiment in the field of Scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1725-1743, February.
    7. Ashraf Maleki, 2022. "Why does library holding format really matter for book impact assessment?: Modelling the relationship between citations and altmetrics with print and electronic holdings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 1129-1160, February.
    8. Yingxin Estella Ye & Jin-Cheon Na & Poong Oh, 2022. "Are automated accounts driving scholarly communication on Twitter? a case study of dissemination of COVID-19 publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2151-2172, May.
    9. Maja Jokić & Andrea Mervar & Stjepan Mateljan, 2019. "Comparative analysis of book citations in social science journals by Central and Eastern European authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(3), pages 1005-1029, September.
    10. Zhang, Chengzhi & Zhou, Qingqing, 2020. "Assessing books’ depth and breadth via multi-level mining on tables of contents," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    11. Michael Taylor, 2020. "An altmetric attention advantage for open access books in the humanities and social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2523-2543, December.
    12. Yaxue Ma & Zhichao Ba & Yuxiang Zhao & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2021. "Understanding and predicting the dissemination of scientific papers on social media: a two-step simultaneous equation modeling–artificial neural network approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 7051-7085, August.
    13. Qingqing Zhou & Chengzhi Zhang, 2020. "Evaluating wider impacts of books via fine-grained mining on citation literatures," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1923-1948, December.
    14. Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh & A. Noorhidawati & A. Abrizah, 2019. "What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature’s books," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 521-536, October.
    15. Wang, Yajie & Hou, Haiyan & Hu, Zhigang, 2021. "‘To tweet or not to tweet?’ A study of the use of Twitter by scholarly book publishers in Social Sciences and Humanities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    16. João Melo Maricato & Bruno Lara Castro Manso, 2022. "Characterization of the communities of attention interacting with scientific papers on Twitter: altmetric analysis of a Brazilian University," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 3815-3835, July.
    17. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Cinzia Daraio & Stefano Fantoni & Viola Folli & Marco Leonetti & Giancarlo Ruocco, 2017. "Do social sciences and humanities behave like life and hard sciences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 607-653, July.
    18. Enrique Orduña-Malea & Cristina I. Font-Julián, 2022. "Are patents linked on Twitter? A case study of Google patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6339-6362, November.
    19. Jianhua Hou & Jiantao Ye, 2020. "Are uncited papers necessarily all nonimpact papers? A quantitative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1631-1662, August.
    20. Ronald Snijder, 2016. "Revisiting an open access monograph experiment: measuring citations and tweets 5 years later," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1855-1875, December.

    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:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:6:d:10.1007_s11192-021-03947-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.