He authors’ adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and

He authors’ adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.between the scientific community and the public is also important for maintaining legitimacy and funding for science itself [1,2]. Social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, may facilitate direct communication between experts and the public more than order P144 Peptide traditional media has enabled in the past. They allow both for scholar participation in wider discussions and communication with new audiences, and for public FPS-ZM1 web engagement with scientific research and participation in the social context in which it takes place [3?]. However, while people are increasingly spending time consuming, generating and exchanging content on social media [6], only few studies have characterized how the public engages with scientific information on these media [3]. Specifically, little is known on how different types of content and different social media platforms shape different types of public engagement with science online. To characterize these effects, this study makes use of digital trace data of public engagement with science. These data go far beyond what could be gathered from engagement with traditional media such as surveys and audience measurement tools for radio and television. We explore user interactions with almost identical content items crossposted on five social media platforms of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).Literature Review Public Engagement with Science OnlineMuch of the public’s engagement with science takes place online. According to a survey conducted in the US in 2014, the Internet was the public’s primary source for science and technology information (42 , up from 35 in 2010) [7]. Similarly, in a 2014 survey, 67 of US respondents said that the Internet was their primary source of specific information about scientific issues, up from 63 in 2012 [8,9]. Increasingly, US lay audiences are relying on non-journalistic online sources, such as blogs and social media platforms, as sources of information about science [10]. Relatively little is known about user engagement with scientific information online [10]. Some of the existing research on this topic has focused specifically on characterizing (1) seeking, (2) commenting on and (3) sharing scientific information in specific contexts over the Internet. Information-seeking. Observational findings suggest that educational activities and media attention to scientific issues motivate people to seek scientific information. Thus, for example, search volumes for queries such as “Swine Flu Vaccine”, “West Nile Virus” and “Global Warming” tend to be associated with media coverage, whereas search volumes for queries such as “Biology”, “Chemistry” and “DNA” tend to be associated with the academic calendar [11]. Searches for scientific topics featured in the news, such as science-related Nobel prizes, grow quickly (1.2?.3 per minute in the first 9?0 hours after the announcement), but this attention tends to be short-lived, and declines by half within a week [12]. Additionally, experimental findings suggest that people tend to search for an emerging technology more often if they support it, or if they anticipate that they will have to discuss it with people who hold views on it that differ from their own [13]. Commenting. Comments can reveal what meanings are derived by readers from coverage of science-related topics, and what resources they bring to the dialogue between science and society [14]. Thus, commenti.He authors’ adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.between the scientific community and the public is also important for maintaining legitimacy and funding for science itself [1,2]. Social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, may facilitate direct communication between experts and the public more than traditional media has enabled in the past. They allow both for scholar participation in wider discussions and communication with new audiences, and for public engagement with scientific research and participation in the social context in which it takes place [3?]. However, while people are increasingly spending time consuming, generating and exchanging content on social media [6], only few studies have characterized how the public engages with scientific information on these media [3]. Specifically, little is known on how different types of content and different social media platforms shape different types of public engagement with science online. To characterize these effects, this study makes use of digital trace data of public engagement with science. These data go far beyond what could be gathered from engagement with traditional media such as surveys and audience measurement tools for radio and television. We explore user interactions with almost identical content items crossposted on five social media platforms of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).Literature Review Public Engagement with Science OnlineMuch of the public’s engagement with science takes place online. According to a survey conducted in the US in 2014, the Internet was the public’s primary source for science and technology information (42 , up from 35 in 2010) [7]. Similarly, in a 2014 survey, 67 of US respondents said that the Internet was their primary source of specific information about scientific issues, up from 63 in 2012 [8,9]. Increasingly, US lay audiences are relying on non-journalistic online sources, such as blogs and social media platforms, as sources of information about science [10]. Relatively little is known about user engagement with scientific information online [10]. Some of the existing research on this topic has focused specifically on characterizing (1) seeking, (2) commenting on and (3) sharing scientific information in specific contexts over the Internet. Information-seeking. Observational findings suggest that educational activities and media attention to scientific issues motivate people to seek scientific information. Thus, for example, search volumes for queries such as “Swine Flu Vaccine”, “West Nile Virus” and “Global Warming” tend to be associated with media coverage, whereas search volumes for queries such as “Biology”, “Chemistry” and “DNA” tend to be associated with the academic calendar [11]. Searches for scientific topics featured in the news, such as science-related Nobel prizes, grow quickly (1.2?.3 per minute in the first 9?0 hours after the announcement), but this attention tends to be short-lived, and declines by half within a week [12]. Additionally, experimental findings suggest that people tend to search for an emerging technology more often if they support it, or if they anticipate that they will have to discuss it with people who hold views on it that differ from their own [13]. Commenting. Comments can reveal what meanings are derived by readers from coverage of science-related topics, and what resources they bring to the dialogue between science and society [14]. Thus, commenti.