ABSTRACT
BackgroundPrevious research has shown that articles may be cited more frequently on the basis of title or abstract positivity. Whether a similar selective sharing practice exists on Twitter is not well understood. The objective of this study was to assess if COVID-19 articles with positive titles or abstracts were tweeted more frequently than those with non-positive titles or abstracts. MethodsCOVID-19 related articles published between January 1st and April 14th, 2020 were extracted from the LitCovid database and all articles were screened for eligibility. Titles and abstracts were classified using a list of positive and negative words from a previous study. A negative binomial regression analysis controlling for confounding variables (2018 impact factor, open access status, continent of the corresponding author, and topic) was performed to obtain regression coefficients, with the p values obtained by likelihood ratio testing. ResultsA total of 3752 COVID-19 articles were included. Of the included studies, 44 titles and 112 abstracts were positive; 1 title and 7 abstracts were negative; and 3707 titles and 627 abstracts were neutral. Articles with positive titles had a lower tweet rate relative to articles with non-positive titles, with a regression coefficient of -1.10 (P < .001), while the positivity of the abstract did not impact tweet rate (P = .2218). ConclusionCOVID-19 articles with non-positive titles are preferentially tweeted, while abstract positivity does not influence tweet rate.
ABSTRACT
ObjectiveThe novel coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has infected millions worldwide and impacted the lives of many folds more. Many clinicians share new Covid-19 related resources, research, and ideas within the online Free Open Access to Medical Education (FOAM) community of practice. This study provides a detailed content and contributor analysis of Covid-19 related tweets among the FOAM community. Design, Setting, ParticipantsTwitter was searched from November 1st, 2019 to March 21st, 2020 for English tweets discussing Covid-19 in the FOAM community. Tweets were classified into one of 13 pre-specified content categories: original research, editorials, FOAM resource, public health, podcast or video, learned experience, refuting false information, policy discussion, emotional impact, blatantly false information, other Covid-19, and non-Covid-19. Further analysis of linked original research and FOAM resources was performed. 1000 randomly selected contributor profiles and those deemed to have contributed false information were analyzed. ResultsThe search yielded 8541 original tweets from 4104 contributors. The number of tweets in each content category were: 1557 other Covid-19 (18{middle dot}2%), 1190 emotional impact (13{middle dot}9%), 1122 FOAM resources (13{middle dot}1%), 1111 policy discussion (13{middle dot}0%), 928 advice (10{middle dot}9%), 873 learned experience (10{middle dot}2%), 424 non-Covid-19 (5{middle dot}0%), 410 podcast or video (4{middle dot}8%), 304 editorials (3{middle dot}6%), 275 original research (3{middle dot}2%), 245 public health (2{middle dot}9%), 83 refuting false information (1{middle dot}0%), and 19 blatantly false (0{middle dot}2%). ConclusionsEarly in the Covid-19 pandemic, the FOAM community used Twitter to share Covid-19 learned experiences, online resources, crowd-sourced advice, research, and to discuss the emotional impact of Covid-19. Twitter also provided a forum for post-publication peer review of new research. Sharing blatantly false information within this community was infrequent. This study highlights several potential benefits from engaging with the FOAM community on Twitter.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in over 1,000,000 cases across 181 countries worldwide. The global impact of COVID-19 has resulted in a surge of related research. Researchers have turned to social media platforms, namely Twitter, to disseminate their articles. The online database Altmetric is a tool which tracks the social media metrics of articles and is complementary to traditional, citation-based metrics. Citation-based metrics may fail to portray dissemination accurately, due to the lengthy publication process. Altmetrics are not subject to this time-lag, suggesting that they may be an effective marker of research dissemination during the COVID-19 pandemic. ObjectivesTo assess the dissemination of COVID-19 articles as measured by Twitter dissemination, compared to traditional citation-based metrics, and determine article characteristics associated with tweet rates. MethodsCOVID-19 articles obtained from LitCovid published between January 1st to March 18th, 2020 were screened for inclusion. The following article characteristics were extracted independently, in single: Topic (General Info, Mechanism, Diagnosis, Transmission, Treatment, Prevention, Case Report, and Epidemic Forecasting), open access status (open access and subscription-based), continent of corresponding author (Asia, Australia, Africa, North America, South America, and Europe), tweets, and citations. A sign test was used to compare the tweet rate and citation rate per day. A negative binomial regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the association between tweet rate and article characteristics of interest. Results1328 articles were included in the analysis. Tweet rates were found to be significantly higher than citation rates for COVID-19 articles, with a median tweet rate of 1.09 (IQR 6.83) tweets per day and median citation rate of 0.00 (IQR 0.00) citations per day, resulting in a median of differences of 1.09 (95% CI 0.86-1.33, P < .001). 2018 journal impact factors were positively correlated with tweet rate (P < .001). The topics Diagnosis (P = .01), Transmission (P < .001), Treatment (P = .01), and Epidemic Forecasting (P < .001) were positively correlated with tweet rate, relative to Case Report. The following continents of the corresponding author were negatively correlated with tweet rate, Africa (P < .001), Australia (P = .03), and South America (P < .001), relative to Asia. Open access journals were negatively correlated with tweet rate, relative to subscription-based journals (P < .001). ConclusionsCOVID-19 articles had significantly higher tweets rates compared to citation rates. This study further identified article characteristics that are correlated with the dissemination of articles on Twitter, such as 2018 journal impact factor, continent of the corresponding author, topic, and open access status. This highlights the importance of altmetrics in periods of rapidly expanding research, such as the COVID-19 pandemic to localize highly disseminated articles.
