使用Twitter作为肿瘤学技术平台与其用户的科学影响之间的联系。

W. Cheung, E. Lim, S. Kong
{"title":"使用Twitter作为肿瘤学技术平台与其用户的科学影响之间的联系。","authors":"W. Cheung, E. Lim, S. Kong","doi":"10.1200/jgo.2019.5.suppl.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"16 Background: Social media channels, such as Twitter, represent relatively new technology platforms for scientific users to disseminate research findings and communicate their views and interpretations to colleagues and followers. To date, the associations between the use of Twitter and the scientific impact of its users are unclear. Methods: All Canadian oncologists who are full members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were identified from the online membership directory. Users of Twitter were defined as those with an active Twitter account, as of June 2019, and posted at least one tweet within the past year. Data regarding the number of tweets, likes, and followers were collected by an online search of Twitter. Scientific impact of each individual was assessed based on a user’s h-index and number of citations from Google Scholar as well as score from Research Gate. Associations were examined with summary statistics and correlation coefficients. Results: We identified 676 eligible oncologists of whom 80 (12%) and 596 (88%) currently use and do not use Twitter. Among the users, the median number (IQR) of tweets, likes, and followers were 196 (45-865), 325 (86-1,246), and 198 (89-449), respectively. The scientific impact of Twitter users versus non-users was statistically similar (see Table). Likewise, within the group of users, there was no correlation between the number of tweets, likes, and followers and the scientific impact of individuals (correlation coefficients 0.38, 0.34, and 0.41, respectively, all p > 0.05). Conclusions: Only 1 in 10 oncologists use Twitter, but those who use Twitter leveraged this technology platform frequently. There was no association between the use of Twitter and the scientific impact of its users. Views from a minority of oncologists are represented on Twitter. Such bias underscores the need to exercise caution when using social media for scientific knowledge exchange. Regular evaluations of new technologies are warranted to ensure the quality and rigor of their scientific content. [Table: see text]","PeriodicalId":15862,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Associations between the use of Twitter as a technology platform in oncology and the scientific impact of its users.\",\"authors\":\"W. Cheung, E. Lim, S. Kong\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/jgo.2019.5.suppl.16\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"16 Background: Social media channels, such as Twitter, represent relatively new technology platforms for scientific users to disseminate research findings and communicate their views and interpretations to colleagues and followers. To date, the associations between the use of Twitter and the scientific impact of its users are unclear. Methods: All Canadian oncologists who are full members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were identified from the online membership directory. Users of Twitter were defined as those with an active Twitter account, as of June 2019, and posted at least one tweet within the past year. Data regarding the number of tweets, likes, and followers were collected by an online search of Twitter. Scientific impact of each individual was assessed based on a user’s h-index and number of citations from Google Scholar as well as score from Research Gate. Associations were examined with summary statistics and correlation coefficients. Results: We identified 676 eligible oncologists of whom 80 (12%) and 596 (88%) currently use and do not use Twitter. Among the users, the median number (IQR) of tweets, likes, and followers were 196 (45-865), 325 (86-1,246), and 198 (89-449), respectively. The scientific impact of Twitter users versus non-users was statistically similar (see Table). Likewise, within the group of users, there was no correlation between the number of tweets, likes, and followers and the scientific impact of individuals (correlation coefficients 0.38, 0.34, and 0.41, respectively, all p > 0.05). Conclusions: Only 1 in 10 oncologists use Twitter, but those who use Twitter leveraged this technology platform frequently. There was no association between the use of Twitter and the scientific impact of its users. Views from a minority of oncologists are represented on Twitter. Such bias underscores the need to exercise caution when using social media for scientific knowledge exchange. Regular evaluations of new technologies are warranted to ensure the quality and rigor of their scientific content. [Table: see text]\",\"PeriodicalId\":15862,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of global oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of global oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/jgo.2019.5.suppl.16\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of global oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/jgo.2019.5.suppl.16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

16背景:推特等社交媒体渠道代表了相对较新的技术平台,科学用户可以传播研究结果,并将他们的观点和解释传达给同事和追随者。迄今为止,推特的使用与其用户的科学影响之间的联系尚不清楚。方法:所有加拿大肿瘤学家都是美国临床肿瘤学会的正式成员,他们都是从在线会员目录中确定的。截至2019年6月,推特用户被定义为拥有活跃推特账户的用户,并在过去一年内至少发布了一条推特。推特的在线搜索收集了推特、点赞和关注人数的数据。根据用户的h指数、谷歌学者的引用次数以及研究门的得分来评估每个人的科学影响。采用汇总统计数据和相关系数对关联性进行了检验。结果:我们确定了676名符合条件的肿瘤学家,其中80人(12%)和596人(88%)目前使用和不使用Twitter。在用户中,推特、点赞和关注者的中位数(IQR)分别为196(45-865)、325(86-1246)和198(89-449)。推特用户与非用户的科学影响在统计上相似(见表)。同样,在用户组中,推特、点赞和关注者的数量与个人的科学影响力之间没有相关性(相关系数分别为0.38、0.34和0.41,均p>0.05)。结论:只有十分之一的肿瘤学家使用推特,但使用推特的人经常利用这一技术平台。推特的使用与其用户的科学影响之间没有关联。来自少数肿瘤学家的观点在推特上得到了体现。这种偏见突显了在使用社交媒体进行科学知识交流时需要谨慎行事。有必要定期对新技术进行评估,以确保其科学内容的质量和严谨性。[表格:见正文]
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Associations between the use of Twitter as a technology platform in oncology and the scientific impact of its users.
16 Background: Social media channels, such as Twitter, represent relatively new technology platforms for scientific users to disseminate research findings and communicate their views and interpretations to colleagues and followers. To date, the associations between the use of Twitter and the scientific impact of its users are unclear. Methods: All Canadian oncologists who are full members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were identified from the online membership directory. Users of Twitter were defined as those with an active Twitter account, as of June 2019, and posted at least one tweet within the past year. Data regarding the number of tweets, likes, and followers were collected by an online search of Twitter. Scientific impact of each individual was assessed based on a user’s h-index and number of citations from Google Scholar as well as score from Research Gate. Associations were examined with summary statistics and correlation coefficients. Results: We identified 676 eligible oncologists of whom 80 (12%) and 596 (88%) currently use and do not use Twitter. Among the users, the median number (IQR) of tweets, likes, and followers were 196 (45-865), 325 (86-1,246), and 198 (89-449), respectively. The scientific impact of Twitter users versus non-users was statistically similar (see Table). Likewise, within the group of users, there was no correlation between the number of tweets, likes, and followers and the scientific impact of individuals (correlation coefficients 0.38, 0.34, and 0.41, respectively, all p > 0.05). Conclusions: Only 1 in 10 oncologists use Twitter, but those who use Twitter leveraged this technology platform frequently. There was no association between the use of Twitter and the scientific impact of its users. Views from a minority of oncologists are represented on Twitter. Such bias underscores the need to exercise caution when using social media for scientific knowledge exchange. Regular evaluations of new technologies are warranted to ensure the quality and rigor of their scientific content. [Table: see text]
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Global Oncology (JGO) is an online only, open access journal focused on cancer care, research and care delivery issues unique to countries and settings with limited healthcare resources. JGO aims to provide a home for high-quality literature that fulfills a growing need for content describing the array of challenges health care professionals in resource-constrained settings face. Article types include original reports, review articles, commentaries, correspondence/replies, special articles and editorials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信