Abstract
Research papers are often shared in Twitter to facilitate better readership. Tweet counts are embedded in journal websites and academic databases, to emphasize the impact of papers in social media. However, more number of tweets per paper is doubted as an indicator of research quality. Hence, there is a need to look at the intrinsic factors in tweets. Sentiment is one of such factors. Earlier studies have shown that neutral sentiment is predominantly found in tweets with links to research papers. In this study, the main intention was to have a closer look at the non-neutral sentiments in tweets to understand whether there is some scope for using such tweets in measuring the interim quality of the associated research papers. Tweets of 53,831 computer science papers from the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) dataset were extracted for sentiment classification. The non-neutral sentiment keywords and the attributed aspects of the papers were manually identified. Findings indicate that although neutral sentiments are majorly found in tweets, the research impact of papers which had all three sentiments was better than papers which had only neutral sentiment, in terms of both bibliometrics and altmetrics. Implications for future studies are also discussed.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
SentiStrength http://sentistrength.wlv.ac.uk/.
- 2.
TextBlob: Simplified Text Processing https://textblob.readthedocs.io/en/dev/.
- 3.
How is the Altmetric Attention Score calculated https://help.altmetric.com/support/solutions/articles/6000060969-how-is-the-altmetric-attention-score-calculated-.
References
Viviani, M., Pasi, G.: Credibility in social media: opinions, news, and health information - a survey. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 7, e1209 (2017)
Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B.-C., Hedlund, T.: The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE 6, e20961 (2011)
Liu, X.Z., Fang, H.: What we can learn from tweets linking to research papers. Scientometrics 111, 349–369 (2017)
Haustein, S., Larivière, V.: The use of bibliometrics for assessing research: possibilities, limitations and adverse effects. In: Welpe, I.M., Wollersheim, J., Ringelhan, S., Osterloh, M. (eds.) Incentives and Performance, pp. 121–139. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_8
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., Neylon, C.: Altmetrics: a manifestoitle. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
Veletsianos, G., Kimmons, R.: Scholars in an increasingly open and digital world: how do education professors and students use Twitter? Internet High. Educ. 30, 1–10 (2016)
Mohammadi, E., Thelwall, M., Kwasny, M., Holmes, K.L.: Academic information on Twitter: a user survey. PLoS ONE 13, e0197265 (2018)
Robinson-Garcia, N., Costas, R., Isett, K., Melkers, J., Hicks, D.: The unbearable emptiness of tweeting—About journal articles. PLoS ONE 12, e0183551 (2017)
Merton, R.K.: The Matthew effect in science. Science 159, 59–63 (1968)
Thelwall, M.: Why do papers have many Mendeley readers but few scopus-indexed citations and vice versa? J. Librariansh. Inf. Sci. 49, 144–151 (2017)
Costas, R., Zahedi, Z., Wouters, P.: Do “Altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66, 2003–2019 (2015)
Ortega, J.L.: Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: the case of CSIC’s members. J. Informetr. 9, 39–49 (2015)
Chew, C., Eysenbach, G.: Pandemics in the age of Twitter: content analysis of tweets during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak. PLoS ONE 5, e14118 (2010)
Small, T.A.: What the Hashtag? A content analysis of Canadian politics on Twitter. Inf. Commun. Soc. 14, 872–895 (2011)
Pang, B., Lee, L.: Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found. Trends® Inf. Retr. 2, 1–135 (2008)
Bing, L.: Web Data Mining: Exploring Hyperlinks, Contents, and Usage Data. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-37882-2
Kouloumpis, E., Wilson, T., Moore, J.: Twitter sentiment analysis: the good the dad and the OMG! In: Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (2011)
Thakkar, H., Patel, D.: Approaches for sentiment analysis on Twitter: a state-of-art study (2015)
Thelwall, M., Tsou, A., Weingart, S., Holmberg, K., Haustein, S.: Tweeting links to academic articles. Cybermetrics Int. J. Sci. Inf. Bibliometr. 17, 1–8 (2013)
Friedrich, N., Bowman, T.D., Stock, W.G., Haustein, S.: Adapting sentiment analysis for tweets linking to scientific papers (2015)
Friedrich, N., Bowman, T.D., Haustein, S.: Do tweets to scientific articles contain positive or negative sentiments? In: The 2015 Altmetrics Workshop, Amsterdam (2015)
Sinha, A., et al.: An overview of microsoft academic service (MAS) and applications. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web - WWW 2015 Companion, pp. 243–246. ACM Press, New York (2015)
Chu, Z., Gianvecchio, S., Wang, H., Jajodia, S.: Who is tweeting on Twitter: human, bot, or cyborg? In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference on - ACSAC 2010, p. 21. ACM Press, New York (2010)
Charmaz, K., Belgrave, L.L.: Grounded theory. In: The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Wiley, Oxford (2015)
Acknowledgements
The research project “Altmetrics: Rethinking And Exploring New Ways Of Measuring Research” is supported by the National Research Foundation, Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore under its Science of Research, Innovation and Enterprise programme (SRIE Award No. NRF2014-NRF-SRIE001-019).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Sesagiri Raamkumar, A., Ganesan, S., Jothiramalingam, K., Selva, M.K., Erdt, M., Theng, YL. (2018). Investigating the Characteristics and Research Impact of Sentiments in Tweets with Links to Computer Science Research Papers. In: Dobreva, M., Hinze, A., Žumer, M. (eds) Maturity and Innovation in Digital Libraries. ICADL 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11279. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04257-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04257-8_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04256-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04257-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)