Investigating the Characteristics and Research Impact of Sentiments in Tweets with Links to Computer Science Research Papers
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.
KeywordsTwitter Tweet sentiments Research impact Computer science Research metrics
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).
- 1.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)Google Scholar
- 4.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_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., Neylon, C.: Altmetrics: a manifestoitle. http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/
- 17.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)Google Scholar
- 18.Thakkar, H., Patel, D.: Approaches for sentiment analysis on Twitter: a state-of-art study (2015)Google Scholar
- 19.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)Google Scholar
- 20.Friedrich, N., Bowman, T.D., Stock, W.G., Haustein, S.: Adapting sentiment analysis for tweets linking to scientific papers (2015)Google Scholar
- 21.Friedrich, N., Bowman, T.D., Haustein, S.: Do tweets to scientific articles contain positive or negative sentiments? In: The 2015 Altmetrics Workshop, Amsterdam (2015)Google Scholar
- 22.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)Google Scholar
- 23.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)Google Scholar
- 24.Charmaz, K., Belgrave, L.L.: Grounded theory. In: The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Wiley, Oxford (2015)Google Scholar