A recent survey from Pew Research Center (NW, Washington & Inquiries 2018) found that over 44 million people receive science-related information from social media channels to which they subscribe. These include a variety of topics such as new discoveries in health sciences as well as "news you can use" information with practical tips (p. 3). Social and news media attention to scientific publications has been tracked for almost a decade by several platforms which aggregate all public mentions of and interactions with scientific publications. Since the amount of comments, shares, and discussions of scientific publications can reach an audience of thousands, understanding the overall "sentiment" towards the published research is a mammoth task and typically involves merely reading as many posts, shares, and comments as possible. This paper describes an initiative to track and provide sentiment analysis to large social and news media mentions and label them as "positive", "negative" or "neutral". Such labels will enable an overall understanding of the content that lies within these social and news media mentions of scientific publications.
The past decade has witnessed a substantial increase in the number of affiliations listed by individual authors of scientific papers. Some authors now list an astonishing number of institutions, sometimes exceeding 20, 30, or more. This trend raises concerns regarding the genuine scientific contributions these authors make at each institution they claim to be affiliated with. To address this issue, our study conducted a comprehensive regional analysis of the growth of both domestic and international multi-affiliations over the past decade. Our findings reveal certain countries that have experienced an abnormal surge in international multi-affiliation authorships. Coupled with the high numbers of affiliations involved, this emphasizes the need for careful scrutiny of the actual scientific contributions made by these authors and the importance of safeguarding the integrity of scientific output and networks.
In this paper, attention is drawn to the phenomenal increase in coronavirus research this century and how this compares to other contemporary pandemics.
This, our first ISI Insights paper, combines self-identification data from the U.S Census with the uniquely structured and curated Web of Science™ data to examine the issue of diversity in scientific publishing.
Background: In this study we surveyed over 200 healthcare leaders who hold high level management positions across institutions regarding their use and awareness of social media. Method: An online and on-site survey was used to gather information about social media use. Results: The survey found that that healthcare leaders have very little awareness of social media use in their organizations. The survey also found that they mostly use social media for personal purposes and that use is limited to two platforms, Facebook and LinkedIn. In addition, it became clear that patient engagement and research or professional collaborations through social media are not within their scope of activities. Conclusions: More education and awareness is needed in this area. Since social media is gaining presence in all areas of healthcare it is important to raise awareness to its proper use and potential.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.