Who tweets climate change papers? investigating publics of research through users’ descriptions

for altmetrics. Scientometrics. 2020; 124: 1793–1809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03566-7 6. Bruns A. After the ‘APIcalypse’: social media platforms and their fight against critical scholarly research. Information, Communication & Society. 2019; 22: 1544–1566. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019. 1637447 7. Puschmann C. An end to the wild west of social media research: a response to Axel Bruns. Information, Communication & Society. 2019; 22: 1582–1589. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1646300 8. Bruns A, Weller K. Twitter data analytics–or: the pleasures and perils of studying Twitter. Aslib Journal of Information Management. 2014;66. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-02-2014-0027 9. Crawford K. Atlas of Ai: power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2021. 10. D’Ignazio C, Klein LF. Data Feminism. MIT Press; 2020. https://data-feminism.mitpress.mit.edu/ 11. Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, Barnard P, Moomaw WR. World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency. BioScience. 2020; 70: 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088 12. Watts N, Amann M, Ayeb-Karlsson S, Belesova K, Bouley T, Boykoff M, et al. The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: from 25 years of inaction to a global transformation for public health. The Lancet. 2018; 391: 581–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32464-9 PMID: 29096948 13. Besley J, Dudo A. Scientists’ Views about Public Engagement and Science Communication in the Con- text of Climate Change. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.380

14. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, et al., editors. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the PLOS ONE Who tweets climate change research papers? PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268999 June 3, 2022 14 / 17

Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; 2013. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf 15. Tandoc EC Jr, Eng N. Climate Change Communication on Facebook, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and Other Social Media Platforms. Oxford Research Encyclopedia: Climate Science. 2017. https://doi.org/10. 1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.361 16. Walter S, Lo¨ rcher I, Bru¨ggemann M. Scientific networks on Twitter: Analyzing scientists’ interactions in the climate change debate. Public Understanding of Science. 2019; 28: 696–712. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0963662519844131 PMID: 31027461 17. Newman TP. Tracking the release of IPCC AR5 on Twitter: Users, comments, and sources following the release of the Working Group I Summary for Policymakers. Public Understanding of Science. 2017; 26: 815–825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516628477 PMID: 26868025 18. Bolsen T, Shapiro MA. Strategic Framing and Persuasive Messaging to Influence Climate Change Per- ceptions and Decisions. Oxford Research Encyclopedia: Climate Science. 2017. https://doi.org/10. 1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.385 19. van Eck CW, Mulder BC, Dewulf A. Online Climate Change Polarization: Interactional Framing Analysis of Climate Change Blog Comments. Science Communication. 2020; 42: 454–480. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1075547020942228 20. Hestres LE, Hopke JE. Internet-Enabled Activism and Climate Change. Oxford Research Encyclope- dia: Climate Science. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.404

21. Holmberg DK, Hellsten DI. Organizational Communication on Twitter: Differences Between Non-Profit and For-Profit Organizations in the Context of Climate Change. In Schmidt CM, editor. Crossmedia- Kommunikation in kulturbedingten Handlungsra¨ umen. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden; 2016. pp. 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-11076-5_16 22. Segerberg A, Bennett WL. Social Media and the Organization of Collective Action: Using Twitter to Explore the Ecologies of Two Climate Change Protests. The Communication Review. 2011; 14: 197– 215. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2011.597250 23. Segerberg A. Online and Social Media Campaigns for Climate Change Engagement. Oxford Research Encyclopedia: Climate Science. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.398 24. Jahng MR, Lee N. When Scientists Tweet for Social Changes: Dialogic Communication and Collective Mobilization Strategies by Flint Water Study Scientists on Twitter. Science Communication. 2018; 40: 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017751948 25. Bowman TD. Investigating the use of affordances and framing techniques by scholars to manage per- sonal and professional impressions on Twitter. Dissertation, Indiana University. 2015. 26. Holmberg K, Thelwall M. Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics. 2014; 101: 1027–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3 27. Priem J. Altmetrics. In Cronin B, Sugimoto CR, editors. Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multidimen- sional indicators of performance. MIT Press; 2014. pp. 263–287.

28. Vainio J, Holmberg K. Highly tweeted science articles: who tweets them? An analysis of Twitter user profile descriptions. Scientometrics. 2017; 112: 345–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2368-0 29. Bornmann L, Haunschild R, Marx W. Policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact: how often is climate change research mentioned in policy-related documents? Scientometrics. 2016; 109: 1477–1495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2115-y PMID: 27942080 30. Haustein S, Bowman TD, Costas R. Interpreting “altmetrics”: Viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories. In Sugimoto CR, editor. Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Com- munication. De Gruyter Mouton; 2016. pp. 372–405. 31. Kassab O, Bornmann L, Haunschild R. Can altmetrics reflect societal impact considerations: Exploring the potential of altmetrics in the context of a sustainability science research center. Quantitative Science Studies. 2020; 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00032 32. Alperin JP, Gomez CJ, Haustein S. Identifying diffusion patterns of research articles on Twitter: A case study of online engagement with open access articles. Public Understanding of Science. 2018; 28: 2– 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518761733 PMID: 29607775 33. Haunschild R, Bornmann L, Marx W. Climate Change Research in View of Bibliometrics. PLOS ONE. 2016; 11: e0160393. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160393 PMID: 27472663 34. IPCC. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPPC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; 2014, p. 151. 35. Hopke JE, Hestres LE. Visualizing the Paris Climate Talks on Twitter: Media and Climate Stakeholder Visual Social Media During COP21. Social Media + Society. 2018; 4: 2056305118782687. https://doi. org/10.1177/2056305118782687 PLOS ONE Who tweets climate change research papers? PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268999 June 3, 2022 15 / 17

36. Pearce W, Holmberg K, Hellsten I, Nerlich B. Climate change on twitter: Topics, communities and con- versations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 report. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9: e94785. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0094785 PMID: 24718388 37. Walter S, Silva-Schmidt FD, Bru¨ ggemann M. Digital Traces in Context| From “Knowledge Brokers” to Opinion Makers: How Physical Presence Affected Scientists’ Twitter Use During the COP21 Climate Change Conference. International Journal of Communication. 2017; 11: 570–591. 38. Bruns A, Burgess J. Twitter hashtags from ad hoc to calculated publics. In Rambukkana N, editor. Hashtag Publics: The Power and Politics of Discursive Networks. Peter Lang; 2015. pp. 13–28. 39. Thelwall M, Tsou A, Weingart S, Holmberg K, Haustein S. Tweeting Links to Academic Articles. Cyber- metrics: International Journal of Scientometrics, Informetrics and Bibliometrics. 2013; 17: 1–8. 40. Holmberg K, Hellsten I. Twitter Campaigns Around the Fifth IPCC Report: Campaign Spreading, Shared Hashtags, and Separate Communities. SAGE Open. 2016;6: 2158244016659117. https://doi. org/10.1177/2158244016659117 41. Moukarzel S, Rehm M, del Fresno M, Daly AJ. Diffusing science through social networks: The case of breastfeeding communication on Twitter. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15: e0237471. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0237471 PMID: 32790712 42. Moscrop D, Wong L, Alperin JP. Have You Seen This? Why Political Pundits Share Scholarly Research on Social Media. Scholarly and Research Communication. 2020; 11: 21. https://doi.org/10.22230/src. 2020v11n1a355

43. Yeo SK, Su LY-F, Cacciatore MA, McKasy M, Qian S. Predicting Intentions to Engage With Scientific Messages on Twitter: The Roles of Mirth and Need for Humor. Science Communication. 2020; 42: 481– 507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020942512 44. Leas EC, Althouse BM, Dredze M, Obradovich N, Fowler JH, Noar SM, et al. Big Data Sensors of Organic Advocacy: The Case of Leonardo DiCaprio and Climate Change. PLOS ONE. 2016; 11: e0159885. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159885 PMID: 27482907 45. Kwak H, Lee C, Park H, Moon S. What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web—WWW ‘10. ACM Press; 2010. p. 591. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/1772690.1772751 46. Haustein S, Toupin R, Alperin JP. “Not sure if scientist or just Twitter bot” Or: Who tweets about schol- arly papers. Altmetric. 12 Jul 2018. https://www.altmetric.com/blog/not-sure-if-scientist-or-just-twitter- bot-or-who-tweets-about-scholarly-papers/ 47. Mislove A, Lehmann S, Ahn Y-Y, Onnela J-P, Rosenquist JN. Understanding the Demographics of Twit- ter Users. ICWSM. 2011. pp. 554–557. 48. Pew Research Center. Sizing Up Twitter Users. Pew Research Center; 2019. https://www. pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/ 49. Work S, Haustein S, Bowman TD, Larivière V. Social Media in Scholarly Communication. A Review of the Literature and Empirical Analysis of Twitter Use by SSHRC Doctoral Award Recipients. Social Sci- ences and Humanities Research Centre; 2015. https://crctcs.openum.ca/files/sites/60/2015/12/

SSHRC_SocialMediainScholarlyCommunication.pdf 50. Domenget J-C. Usages professionnels et figures d’usager des me´dias socionume´ riques. Revue fran- c¸aise des sciences de l’information et de la communication. 2015;6. https://doi.org/10.4000/rfsic.1325 51. Coˆte´ IM, Darling ES. Scientists on Twitter: Preaching to the choir or singing from the rooftops? FAC- ETS. 2018; 3: 682–694. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2018-0002 52. Carlson J, Harris K. Quantifying and contextualizing the impact of bioRxiv preprints through automated social media audience segmentation. PLoS Biology. 2020; 18: e3000860. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pbio.3000860 PMID: 32960891 53. Tsou A, Bowman TD, Ghazinejad A, Sugimoto CR. Who tweets about science? Proceedings of the 2015 international society for scientometrics and informetrics. 2015. pp. 95–100. 54. Bex RT, Lundgren L, Crippen KJ. Scientific Twitter: The flow of paleontological communication across a topic network. PLOS ONE. 2019; 14: e0219688. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219688 PMID: 31361749 55. How does Altmetric track Twitter. DS Metrics [Internet]. [cited 23 May 2021]. https://help.altmetric.com/ support/solutions/articles/6000235926-twitter 56. Holmberg K, Bowman TD, Haustein S, Peters I. Astrophysicists’ Conversational Connections on Twit- ter. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9: e106086. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106086 PMID: 25153196 57. Costas R, Mongeon P, Ferreira MR, van Honk J, Franssen T. Large-scale identification and characteri-

58. Ke Q, Ahn Y-Y, Sugimoto CR. A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter. PLOS ONE. 2017; 12: e0175368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175368 PMID: 28399145 59. Birkle C, Pendlebury DA, Schnell J, Adams J. Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies. 2020; 1: 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_ 00018 60. Larivière V, Desrochers N. Langues et diffusion de la recherche: le cas des sciences humaines et sociales. Acfas Magazine. 2015. https://www.acfas.ca/publications/magazine/2015/11/langues- diffusion-recherche-cas-sciences-humaines-sociales 61. Haunschild R, Leydesdorff L, Bornmann L, Hellsten I, Marx W. Does the public discuss other topics on climate change than researchers? A comparison of explorative networks based on author keywords and hashtags. Journal of Informetrics. 2019; 13: 695–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.03.008 62. Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L, Franc¸ois R, et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. JOSS. 2019; 4: 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 63. Wickham H. ggplot2. WIREs Comp Stat. 2011; 3: 180–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.147 64. Lehmkuhl M, Promies N. Frequency distribution of journalistic attention for scientific studies and scien- tific sources: An input–output analysis. PLOS ONE. 2020; 15: e0241376. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0241376 PMID: 33175868 65. Toupin R, Haustein S. 2nd Codebook for users categorization—Climate change research. figshare;

2019. https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.8236598.V3 66. Kelley CP, Mohtadi S, Cane MA, Seager R, Kushnir Y. Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and impli- cations of the recent Syrian drought. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015; 112: 3241–3246. https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.1421533112 PMID: 25733898 67. McGlade C, Ekins P. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2˚C. Nature. 2015; 517: 187–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14016 PMID: 25567285 68. Urban MC. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science. 2015; 348: 571–573. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.aaa4984 PMID: 25931559 69. Watts N, Adger WN, Agnolucci P, Blackstock J, Byass P, Cai W, et al. Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health. The Lancet. 2015; 386: 1861–1914. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140- 6736(15)60854-6 PMID: 26111439 70. Kerr JT, Pindar A, Galpern P, Packer L, Potts SG, Roberts SM, et al. Climate change impacts on bum- blebees converge across continents. Science. 2015; 349: 177–180. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. aaa7031 PMID: 26160945 71. Springmann M, Godfray HCJ, Rayner M, Scarborough P. Analysis and valuation of the health and cli- mate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016; 113: 4146–4151. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1523119113 PMID: 27001851 72. Sarkar A, Mukherjee AD, Bera MK, Das B, Juyal N, Morthekai P, et al. Oxygen isotope in archaeological bioapatites from India: Implications to climate change and decline of Bronze Age Harappan civilization.

Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 26555. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26555 PMID: 27222033 73. Springmann M, Mason-D’Croz D, Robinson S, Garnett T, Godfray HCJ, Gollin D, et al. Global and regional health effects of future food production under climate change: a modelling study. The Lancet. 2016; 387: 1937–1946. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01156-3 PMID: 26947322 74. Schleuning M, Fru¨ nd J, Schweiger O, Welk E, Albrecht J, Albrecht M, et al. Ecological networks are more sensitive to plant than to animal extinction under climate change. Nature Communications. 2016; 7: 13965. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13965 PMID: 28008919 75. Sanderson FJ, Pople RG, Ieronymidou C, Burfield IJ, Gregory RD, Willis SG, et al. Assessing the Per- formance of EU Nature Legislation in Protecting Target Bird Species in an Era of Climate Change: Impacts of EU nature legislation. Conservation Letters. 2016; 9: 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl. 12196 76. Joubert M, Costas R. Getting to Know Science Tweeters: A Pilot Analysis of South African Twitter Users Tweeting about Research Articles. Journal of Altmetrics. 2019; 2: 2. https://doi.org/10.29024/joa.8 77. Van Bavel JJ. Scientists have passions outside the lab. We should embrace that. Science. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.acx9560 78. Toupin R, Millerand F, Larivière V. Scholarly communication or public communication of science? Assessing who engage with climate research on Twitter. 17th International Conference on Sciento- metrics & Informetrics. 2019. pp. 2115–2020. https://crc.ebsi.umontreal.ca/publications/scholarly-

communication-or-public-communication-of-science-assessing-who-engage-with-climate-research-on- twitter/ PLOS ONE Who tweets climate change research papers? PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268999 June 3, 2022 17 / 17