Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/2809563.2809584acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesi-knowConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Social activity versus academic activity: a case study of computer scientists on Twitter

Published: 21 October 2015 Publication History

Abstract

In this work, we study social and academic network activities of researchers from Computer Science. Using a recently proposed framework, we map the researchers to their Twitter accounts and link them to their publications. This enables us to create two types of networks: first, networks that reflect social activities on Twitter, namely the researchers' follow, retweet and mention networks and second, networks that reflect academic activities, that is the co-authorship and citation networks. Based on these datasets, we (i) compare the social activities of researchers with their academic activities, (ii) investigate the consistency and similarity of communities within the social and academic activity networks, and (iii) investigate the information flow between different areas of Computer Science in and between both types of networks. Our findings show that if co-authors interact on Twitter, their relationship is reciprocal, increasing with the numbers of papers they co-authored. In general, the social and the academic activities are not correlated. In terms of community analysis, we found that the three social activity networks are most consistent with each other, with the highest consistency between the retweet and mention network. A study of information flow revealed that in the follow network, researchers from Data Management, Human-Computer Interaction, and Artificial Intelligence act as a source of information for other areas in Computer Science.

References

[1]
V. D. Blondel, J.-L. Guillaume, R. Lambiotte, and E. Lefebvre. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10):P10008, 2008.
[2]
K. W. Boyack, R. Klavans, and K. Börner. Mapping the backbone of science. Scientometrics, 64:351--374, 2005.
[3]
A. Clauset, M. E. J. Newman, and C. Moore. Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical Review E, 70:066111, 2004.
[4]
L. Danon, A. Díaz-Guilera, J. Duch, and A. Arenas. Comparing community structure identification. J. Stat. Mech., 9:8, 2005.
[5]
L. De Vocht, S. Softic, A. Dimou, R. Verborgh, E. Mannens, M. Ebner, and R. Van de Walle. Visualizing collaborations and online social interactions at scientific conferences for scholarly networking. In Proc. WWW, pages 1053--1054, 2015.
[6]
S. Dongen. Performance criteria for graph clustering and markov cluster experiments. Technical report, CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000.
[7]
M. Ebner and W. Reinhardt. Social networking in scientific conferences -- Twitter as tool for strengthen a scientific community. In Proc. EC-TEL, Berlin/Heidelberg, Oct. 2009. Springer.
[8]
A. T. Hadgu and R. Jäschke. Identifying and analyzing researchers on Twitter. In Proc. Web Science, pages 23--32. ACM, 2014.
[9]
L. Hubert and P. Arabie. Comparing partitions. Journal of Classification, 2(1):193--218, 1985.
[10]
S. Jung and A. Segev. Analyzing future communities in growing citation networks. Knowledge-Based Systems, 69(0):34--44, 2014.
[11]
J. Letierce, A. Passant, J. Breslin, and S. Decker. Understanding how Twitter is used to widely spread scientific messages. In Proc. Web Science, 2010.
[12]
J. Letierce, A. Passant, J. G. Breslin, and S. Decker. Using Twitter during an academic conference: The #iswc2009 use-case. In W. W. Cohen and S. Gosling, editors, ICWSM. The AAAI Press, 2010.
[13]
M. Mahrt, K. Weller, and I. Peters. Twitter in scholarly communication. In Twitter and Society, pages 399--410. Peter Lang, New York, 2014.
[14]
A. Mazarakis and I. Peters. Tweets and scientific conferences: The use case of the science 2.0 conference. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Social Media 2015 (ECSM 2015), 2015.
[15]
M. Meilă. Comparing clusterings by the variation of information. In Learning Theory and Kernel Machines, pages 173--187. Springer, 2003.
[16]
M. E. J. Newman. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(23):8577--8582, 2006.
[17]
W. Rand. Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66(336):846--850, 1971.
[18]
X. Shi, B. L. Tseng, and L. A. Adamic. Information diffusion in computer science citation networks. CoRR, abs/0905.2, 2009.
[19]
J. Tang, J. Zhang, L. Yao, J. Li, L. Z. 0007, and Z. Su. Arnetminer: extraction and mining of academic social networks. In Proc. KDD, pages 990--998. ACM, 2008.
[20]
K. Weller, E. Dröge, and C. Puschmann. Citation analysis in twitter: Approaches for defining and measuring information flows within tweets during scientific conferences. In M. Rowe, M. Stankovic, A.-S. Dadzie, and M. Hardey, editors, Making Sense of Microposts (#MSM2011), pages 1--12, May 2011.

Cited By

View all
  • (2018)A new network model for the study of scientific collaborationsScientometrics10.1007/s11192-016-1968-4108:2(613-632)Online publication date: 27-Dec-2018
  • (2017)A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on TwitterPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.017536812:4(e0175368)Online publication date: 11-Apr-2017
  • (2017)Scientific communities detection and analysis in the bibliographic database: SCOPUS2017 Fourth International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG)10.1109/ICEDEG.2017.7962521(118-124)Online publication date: Apr-2017
  • Show More Cited By
  1. Social activity versus academic activity: a case study of computer scientists on Twitter

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    i-KNOW '15: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Knowledge Technologies and Data-driven Business
    October 2015
    314 pages
    ISBN:9781450337212
    DOI:10.1145/2809563
    • General Chairs:
    • Stefanie Lindstaedt,
    • Tobias Ley,
    • Harald Sack
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 21 October 2015

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Twitter
    2. computer science
    3. science 2.0

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    Conference

    i-KNOW '15

    Acceptance Rates

    i-KNOW '15 Paper Acceptance Rate 25 of 78 submissions, 32%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 77 of 238 submissions, 32%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)8
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
    Reflects downloads up to 21 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2018)A new network model for the study of scientific collaborationsScientometrics10.1007/s11192-016-1968-4108:2(613-632)Online publication date: 27-Dec-2018
    • (2017)A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on TwitterPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.017536812:4(e0175368)Online publication date: 11-Apr-2017
    • (2017)Scientific communities detection and analysis in the bibliographic database: SCOPUS2017 Fourth International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG)10.1109/ICEDEG.2017.7962521(118-124)Online publication date: Apr-2017
    • (2017)A typology of collaborative research networksOnline Information Review10.1108/OIR-11-2015-036841:2(155-170)Online publication date: 10-Apr-2017

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media