Scientific knowledge percolation process and social impact: A case study on the biotechnology and microbiology perceptions on Twitter

Beatriz Barros, Ana Fernández-Zubieta, Raul Fidalgo-Merino and Francisco Triguero
Authors registered in the RePEc Author Service: Ana Fernández Zubieta

Science and Public Policy, 2018, vol. 45, issue 6, 804-814

Abstract: This article describes a methodology for analysing the diffusion of scientific information into the social sphere, termed the ‘scientific knowledge percolation process’. The methodology was built using automated data collection and lexicon-based data mining techniques. We analysed literature from the scientific biotechnology community (158 journals in 2011; 29,892 articles generating 50,591 different keywords) and how it is perceived by users of the social media site Twitter (375,660 tweets with a subset classified by sentiment (positive, negative, and neutral) for a total of 33,900 tweets for 2012). We show that our method is able to provide data from which we can draw robust conclusions concerning the relationship between scientific and social media information. The study shows that the scientific production of our subset is socially perceived in a neutral manner although it is skewed towards the negative. Because sentiments are relevant for explaining the sharing behaviour of social media users, the results suggest that more attention needs to be paid towards the social perceptions of scientific research. We found that similar scientific concepts can be socially perceived in different ways, which may suggest that there is room for scientists to choose more ‘socially friendly’ descriptions.

Keywords: Internet search; research production; social impact; social media; sentiment analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scy022 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:scippl:v:45:y:2018:i:6:p:804-814.

Access Statistics for this article

Science and Public Policy is currently edited by Nicoletta Corrocher, Jeong-Dong Lee, Mireille Matt and Nicholas Vonortas

More articles in Science and Public Policy from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().