Skip to main content
Log in

Scholarly book publishers as publicity agents for SSH titles on Twitter

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to examine the presence of scholarly book publishers on Twitter, and tweets about books in 10 SSH disciplines (2014–2018). This included time of tweet relative to the book's publication date and time span of twitter activity. We also investigated the ‘categories of conversation' in publisher tweets, with a focus on hashtags and @-mentions. Data collection involved matching 15,454 unique book titles from the BKCI-Web of Science with tweets retrieved from Altmetrics.com, using ISBNs. This led to a working dataset of n = 6258 books (41%), which had received at least one tweet. Our analyses show that scholarly publishers have been using Twitter more and more over a 5 year period, especially commerical publishers. Commercial publishers are more likely than university presses to have multiple Twitter accounts. Both, though mainly commercial publishers, are active at targeting the Twitter accounts of book authors, book editors, other individuals and universities/institutions/organisations. Whilst re-tweets do not often follow first, or ‘initiator' tweets made by publishers, publisher engagement in general corresponds significantly with other tweets, and contributes to keeping the book active for a longer period on Twitter. Publishers play a key role as promotional agents, particularly when a scholarly title is part of a special offer, relevant to a conference, event or special calendar date, when an author is a prize winner, or if author-agreements have been made in regards to open access book chapters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott, C. (2009). To Tweet or not to Tweet: twitter basics for publishers and authors: Promoting books in 140 characters or less. Publishers Weekly, 256(13). Retrieved November 26, 2018 from http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20090330/2722-to-tweet-or-not-to-tweet-twitter-basics-for-publishers-and-authors-.html.

  • Alperin, J. P., Gomez, C. J., & Haustein, S. (2018). Identifying diffusion patterns of research articles on Twitter: A case study of online engagement with open access articles. Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518761733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, T. D. (2015). Differences in personal and professional tweets of scholars. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(3), 356–371. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, D., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences 2010. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from http://www.danah.org/papers/TweetTweetRetweet.pdf.

  • Bruns, A., & Moe, H. (2014). Structural layers of communication on Twitter. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 15–28). New York: Peter Lang.

  • Costas, R. van Honk, J. & Franssen, T. (2017). Scholars on Twitter: Who and how many are they? In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 224–235). Wuhan University: Wuhan, China. Available at: arXiv:1712.05667v1.

  • Darling, E. S., Shiffman, D., Côté, I., & Drew, J. A. (2013). The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 32–43. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.16v1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Didegah, F., Bowman, T. D., Bowman, S., & Hartley, J. (2016). Comparing the characteristics of highly cited titles and highly alted titles. In 21st International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 1190–1195). Valencia, Spain. Retrieved from http://ocs.editorial.upv.es/index.php/STI2016/STI2016/paper/viewFile/4543/2327.

  • Didegah, F., Mejlgaard, N., & Sørensen, M. P. (2018). Investigating the quality of interactions and public engagement around scientific papers on Twitter. Journal of informetrics, 12(3), 960–971.

  • ENRESSH. (2019). Academic book publishers (ABP): A global and multilingual register. Available at: https://enressh.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Academic-Book-Publishers-ABP-A-global-and-interactive-register.pdf.

  • Fang, Z., Costas, R., Tian, W., Wang, X., & Wouters, P. (2020). An extensive analysis of the presence of altmetric data for Web of Science publications across subject fields and research topics. Scientometrics, 124, 2519–2549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03564-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giménez-Toledo, E., Mañana-Rodríguez, J., & Tejada-Artigas, C.-M. (2015). Scholarly publishers indicators: Prestige, specialization and peer review of scholarly book publishers. El profesional de la información, 24(6), 855–860. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2015.nov.18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giménez-Toledo, E., Sivertsen, G., & Ma.ana-Rodr.guez, J. (2019). International Register of Academic Book Publishers (IRAP): Overview, current state and future challenges. In H. F. Moed, C. Daraio, G. Catalano & G. Ruocco (Eds,), Proceedings of the International Society for Scientometrics (ISSI) Conference (pp. 1752–1757). Rome, Italy: September 2–5.

  • Gorraiz, J., Melero-Fuentes, D., Gumpenberger, C., & Valerrama-Zurián, J. (2016). Availability of digital object identifiers (DOIs) in Web of Science and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 98–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guns, R. (2018). Concentration of academic book publishers. In STI 2018 Conference Proceedings (pp. 518–525). Available at : https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/65268.

  • Hammarfelt, B. (2014). Using altmetrics for assessing research impact in the humanities. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1419–1430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1261-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, S.-U., et al. (2017). Measuring social media activity of scientific literature: An exhaustive comparison of scopus and novel altmetrics big data. Scientometrics, 113(2), 1037–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haustein, S. (2016). Grand challenges in altmetrics: Heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. Scientometrics, 108(1), 413–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haustein, S., et al. (2019). Scholarly Twitter metrics. In W. Glanzel, H. F. Moed, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research. (pp. 729–760). Springer.

  • Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., Holmberg, K., Peters, I., & Larivière, V. (2014). Astrophysicists on Twitter: An in-depth analysis of tweeting and scientific publication behavior. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-09-2013-0081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haustein, S., Costas, R., & Larivière, V. (2015). Characterizing social media metrics of scholarly papers: The effect of document properties and collaboration patterns. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0120495. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C. R., Thelwall, M., & Larivière, V. (2013). Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 656–669. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, K., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Disciplinary differences in Twitter scholarly communication. Scientometrics, 101, 1027–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1229-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, K., & Vainio, J. (2018). Why do some research articles receive more online attention and higher altmetrics? Reasons for online success according to the authors. Scientometrics, 116, 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2710-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ke, Q., Ahn, Y.-Y., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2017). A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter. PLoS ONE, 12(4), e0175368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konkiel, S. & Addie, E. (2018). What altmetrics can tell us about the "real world" impacts of books. Available at https://figshare.com/articles/online_resource/What_altmetrics_can_tell_us_about_the_real_world_impacts_of_books/6940325.

  • Kousha, K., Thelwall, M., & Abdoli, S. (2017). Goodreads reviews to assess the wider impacts of books. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(8), 2004–2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulczycki, E., Rozkosz, E. A., Engels, T. C. E., Guns, R., Hołowiecki, M., & Pölönen, J. (2019). How to identify peer-reviewed publications: Open-identity labels in scholarly book publishing. PLoS ONE, 14(3), e0214423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The Oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V. & Alperin, J. P. (12 July 2018). Altmetrics Blog. “Not sure if scientist or just Twitter bot” Or: Who tweets about scholarly papers. Retrieved May 27, 2020 from https://www.altmetric.com/blog/not-sure-if-scientist-or-just-twitter-bot-or-who-tweets-about-scholarly-papers/

  • Mannana-Rodriguez, J., & Giménez-Toledo, E. (2018). Specialization and multidisciplinarity of scholarly book publishers: Differences between Spanish University Presses and other scholarly publishers. Scientometrics, 114(1), 19–30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2563-z.

  • Routledge (2020). Open Access books. Publishing Open Access Books: Chapters. Retrieved from https://www.routledge.com/our-products/open-access-books/publishing-oa-books/chapters.

  • Robinson-Garcia, N., Costas, R., Isett, K., Melkers, J., & Hicks, D. (2017). The unbearable emptiness of tweeting—about journal articles. PLoS ONE, 12(8), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivière, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(9), 2037–2062. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Balance Careers (2019). The big 5 trade book publishers. Retrieved November 29 2019 from https://www.thebalancecareers.com/the-big-five-trade-book-publishers-2800047.

  • Thoring, A. (2011). Corporate Tweeting: Analysing the use of Twitter as a Marketing Tool by UK Trade Publishers. Publishing Research Quarterly, 27(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-011-9214-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsou, A., Bowman, T., Ghazinejad, A., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2015). Who tweets about science? In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 95–100). Istanbul, Turkey: Boğaziçi University Printhouse. Available at: http://www.issi-society.org/proceedings/issi_2015/0095.pdf

  • Torres-Salinas, D., & Moed, H. F. (2009). Library catalog analysis as a tool in studies of social sciences and humanities: An exploratory study of published book titles in economics. Journal of Informetrics, 3(1), 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Salinas, D., Gumpenberger, C., & Gorraiz, J. (2017). PlumX as a potential tool to assess the macroscopic multidimensional impact of books. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 2(5), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2017.00005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Salinas, D., Gorraiz, J. & Robinson-Garcia, N. (2018). The insoluble problems of books: What does Altmetric.com have to offer? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(6), 691–707.

  • Torres-Salinas, D., Robinson-Garcia, N., & Gorraiz, J. (2017). Filling the citation gap: Measuring the multidimensional impact of the academic book at institutional level with PlumX. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1371–1384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verleysen, F. T., & Engels, T. C. E. (2014). A label for peer-reviewed books. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 428–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H., Boell, S. K., Yu, H., Davis, M., Wilson, C. S., & Cole, F. T. H. (2009). Libcitations: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(6), 1083–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H., & Zuccala, A. (2018). Libcitations, WorldCat, cultural impact, and fame. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(12), 1502–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedda, M., & Barbaro, A. (2015). Adoption of Web 2.0 tools among STM publishers. How social are scientific journals? Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, 11(1), 9–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuccala, A., & Cornacchia, R. (2016). Data matching, integration, and interoperability for a metric assessment of monographs. Scientometrics, 108(1), 465–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuccala, A., Guns, R., Cornacchia, R., & Bod, R. (2014). Can we rank scholarly book publishers? A bibliometric experiment with the field of history. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1333–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuccala, A., Pölönen, J., Guns, R., Røeggen, V., Kulczycki, E., Bruun, K. & Savolainen, E. (2021). Performance-based publisher ratings and the visibility/impact of books: Small fish in a big pond, or big fish in a small pond? Quantitative Studies of Science (in press).

  • Zuccala, A., & Robinson-Garcia, N. (2019). Reviewing, indicating and counting books for modern research evaluation systems. In W. Glanzel, H. Moed, U. Schmoch, & M. Thelwall (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology indicators. (pp. 715–728). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alesia Zuccala.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Y., Zuccala, A. Scholarly book publishers as publicity agents for SSH titles on Twitter. Scientometrics 126, 4817–4840 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03947-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03947-6

Keywords

Navigation