How is public discussion as reflected in WeChat articles different from scholarly research in China? An empirical study of metaverse

Social media platforms do not blur the difference in information preferences between the general public and researchers when faced with the same heated events. This study aims to investigate the consistency between the public focus conveyed by WeChat articles and the scholarly focus reflected by CNKI papers in China, and to reveal the underlying interaction between researchers and the public. Metaverse is used as a case study. Based on articles mentioning metaverse in WeChat and CNKI, the dominant accounts and disciplines, topics discussed and studied, and sentiments related to metaverse are explored. Furthermore, WeChat articles mentioning scholarly outputs are identified to map the interaction between the public and researchers. Empirical analysis reveals that the first articles mentioning metaverse in both datasets predate the rebranding of Facebook. WeChat official accounts from the technology and finance industries post more metaverse-related articles, while researchers from journalism and information management are the main forces in academia. Both the public and academia discuss the impact of metaverse on the economy, politics, and social relations, the public also discusses the infrastructure, while academia ponders metaverse from the philosophical perspective, mass communication, and education. 60% of academic articles are mentioned by WeChat. The operators of WeChat official accounts, the public, and scholars express different sentiments. The theoretical significance lies in combining social media studies of science with bibliometric analysis. Practically, the public can take advantage to clarify the confusion related to metaverse. For policymakers, we provide scientific evidence to look for directions in the metaverse development.