Nderstanding behaviours such as clicking, sharing and commenting. However, relatively little attention has been paid, so far, to the characterization of other types of user engagement with online scientific information, such as “liking”. Also, little is known about the relationships between clicking, commenting and other behaviours, such as sharing and spending time on a science-related website.Social Media and Public Engagement with ScienceSocial media such as Facebook and Twitter are “digital Web 2.0 platforms that facilitate information-sharing, user-created content and collaboration across people” [26]. On these platforms, users can typically create a (semi-)public profile, create connections with others and view and correspond with people they are connected to. These platforms have become popular worldwide. In fact, Facebook reports that in December 2015, 1.04 billion unique users actively used the platform on an average day [27]. Moreover, for many people, especially in industrialized societies, social media have become an integral part of daily life [28]. These prevalent yet poorly understood platforms take many forms, creating different contexts that differentlyPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0156409 May 27,3 /Engagement with Particle Physics on CERN’s Social Media Platformsshape user cognition, affect and behaviour. Most of the relevant research focuses on specific platforms, precluding a broader understanding of social media and of the ways people use them [26]. Like social media research in general, literature on public engagement with science on social media is relatively unsystematic, and each study generally focuses on a specific platform. For example, a study on engagement with YouTube videos about organ donations found that the vast majority of user comments on such videos were positive [29]. Another study focused on engagement with messages provided by U.S. health agencies on Twitter, and found that tweets about activities and behaviours, chemicals, drugs, and disorders tend to be retweeted more often than tweets on other topics [30]. Yet another Twitter study found that information about a new influenza vaccine tended to flow via retweets between users who shared the same sentiments about it [31]. FPS-ZM1 chemical information Lastly, another study described public engagement with a marine research institute on Facebook, finding that posting video and images increased the reach of posts, and so did posting long stories. However, the researchers also found that interactions with the audience did not extend beyond a few exchanges of questions and answers between users and the page PD98059MedChemExpress PD98059 administrator [32]. To conclude, researchers are only beginning to understand the effects of different social media platforms on engagement with science, and have yet to develop rigorous methodologies for this purpose. Here, we provide a quantitative and qualitative characterization of public engagement with particle physics across five social media platforms and describe a method to conduct such cross-platform comparisons. Two research questions guided this study: 1. How do users engage with scientific information on different social media platforms, when controlling for content? 2. What are the characteristics of the most popular scientific information items on social media in terms of user interactions?Research FieldTo address these research questions, authentic social media analytics data from the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) were analyzed. CERN.Nderstanding behaviours such as clicking, sharing and commenting. However, relatively little attention has been paid, so far, to the characterization of other types of user engagement with online scientific information, such as “liking”. Also, little is known about the relationships between clicking, commenting and other behaviours, such as sharing and spending time on a science-related website.Social Media and Public Engagement with ScienceSocial media such as Facebook and Twitter are “digital Web 2.0 platforms that facilitate information-sharing, user-created content and collaboration across people” [26]. On these platforms, users can typically create a (semi-)public profile, create connections with others and view and correspond with people they are connected to. These platforms have become popular worldwide. In fact, Facebook reports that in December 2015, 1.04 billion unique users actively used the platform on an average day [27]. Moreover, for many people, especially in industrialized societies, social media have become an integral part of daily life [28]. These prevalent yet poorly understood platforms take many forms, creating different contexts that differentlyPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0156409 May 27,3 /Engagement with Particle Physics on CERN’s Social Media Platformsshape user cognition, affect and behaviour. Most of the relevant research focuses on specific platforms, precluding a broader understanding of social media and of the ways people use them [26]. Like social media research in general, literature on public engagement with science on social media is relatively unsystematic, and each study generally focuses on a specific platform. For example, a study on engagement with YouTube videos about organ donations found that the vast majority of user comments on such videos were positive [29]. Another study focused on engagement with messages provided by U.S. health agencies on Twitter, and found that tweets about activities and behaviours, chemicals, drugs, and disorders tend to be retweeted more often than tweets on other topics [30]. Yet another Twitter study found that information about a new influenza vaccine tended to flow via retweets between users who shared the same sentiments about it [31]. Lastly, another study described public engagement with a marine research institute on Facebook, finding that posting video and images increased the reach of posts, and so did posting long stories. However, the researchers also found that interactions with the audience did not extend beyond a few exchanges of questions and answers between users and the page administrator [32]. To conclude, researchers are only beginning to understand the effects of different social media platforms on engagement with science, and have yet to develop rigorous methodologies for this purpose. Here, we provide a quantitative and qualitative characterization of public engagement with particle physics across five social media platforms and describe a method to conduct such cross-platform comparisons. Two research questions guided this study: 1. How do users engage with scientific information on different social media platforms, when controlling for content? 2. What are the characteristics of the most popular scientific information items on social media in terms of user interactions?Research FieldTo address these research questions, authentic social media analytics data from the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) were analyzed. CERN.
Heme Oxygenase heme-oxygenase.com
Just another WordPress site
