Search

In public debates, climate change communication tends to polarize into communities for and against the scientific basis of global warming. We analyze mention networks on Twitter around the publication of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 2 and 3 reports that were published in March–April 2014. Building upon earlier research into climate skepticism and polarization of climate change debate, we focus on the relative prominence of different types of Twitter user accounts, in terms of engagement with other users and their alignments towards the scientific basis of climate change. We distinguish a "heart" actively discussing IPCC from a "shadow", which more anecdotally mentions IPCC and is likely to correspond to the remainder of a public space minimally interested in IPCC-related reports. We develop an original network analysis framework that enables us to analyze and deconstruct the inner structure of this heart's strongly intertwined engagement dynamics. Interesting observations relate to the position of critical users, who are in the minority, but are in relative terms most engaged with and most engaging with other users in this arena, while the media, casual users and governmental agencies occupy relatively less prominent positions. We further qualify the various structural positions by demonstrating that they correspond to different types of vocabulary specific to user types and positions. This socio-semantic approach may be generally helpful to disentangle semantic and structural polarization in online conversation spaces where opposing poles precisely appear to be mixing. • Users critical of anthropogenic climate change hold a prominent position on Twitter. • They dominate a heart of users discussing IPCC reports despite being in minority. • Their vocabulary distinctly relies on scientific rather than political terms. • Media, individuals and governmental organizations are less prominent in the debate. • The heart exhibits a socio-semantic hierarchy intertwining terms and positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Top-85 hashtags from tweets between 2011 and 2017 which mentioned a climate change research paper. A resolution parameter of 0.50 with a minimum cluster size of 5 was used. An interactive version of this network can be viewed at http://tinyurl.com/y5red2lf. Note that the color scheme may be different in the interactive version. • We developed new methods based on Twitter data to visualize public discussions around research topics. • Topics of tweeted and not-tweeted climate change publications are compared by means of network analysis. • Not tweeted papers mirror all aspects of climate change research. • Most tweeted topics regarding climate change research focus on consequences for humans due to climate change. • Twitter users are interested in climate change forecasts concerning the environment, and in adaptation and mitigation issues. Twitter accounts have already been used in many scientometric studies, but the meaningfulness of the data for societal impact measurements in research evaluation has been questioned. Earlier research focused on social media counts and neglected the interactive nature of the data. We explore a new network approach based on Twitter data in which we compare author keywords to hashtags as indicators of topics. We analyze the topics of tweeted publications and compare them with the topics of all publications (tweeted and not tweeted). Our exploratory study is based on a comprehensive publication set of climate change research. We are interested in whether Twitter data are able to reveal topics of public discussions which can be separated from research-focused topics. We find that the most tweeted topics regarding climate change research focus on the consequences of climate change for humans. Twitter users are interested in climate change publications which forecast effects of a changing climate on the environment and to adaptation, mitigation and management issues rather than in the methodology of climate-change research and causes of climate change. Our results indicate that publications using scientific jargon are less likely to be tweeted than publications using more general keywords. Twitter networks seem to be able to visualize public discussions about specific topics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • Issue arenas can be studied as communication networks in which topics are discussed. • We automatically map stakeholders and the topics in an issue arena on Twitter. • We analyzed 704 Twitter messages on bird flu in poultry. • Our approach can assist in issue monitoring and stakeholder detection. Abstract Issue arenas, as places for societal discussions, have recently been studied as an important aspect of organizational environments. While a fundamental part of any issue arena is the distinction between active and passive actors, empirical analyses have mainly focused on active stakeholders. We approach issue arenas as communication networks in which active stakeholders discuss topics and involve passive stakeholders. Based on network theory, we introduce an automated method for mapping these issue arenas on Twitter. In particular, we combine manual coding of active stakeholders, and automated semantic network analysis of addressed, passive stakeholders and their topics of discussion. Empirically, we focus on the issue of bird flu affecting poultry farming in the Netherlands from 2015 to 2017 with a sample of 704 Twitter messages. Instead of pre-defining a set of stakeholders for the analysis, our approach to study communication networks in online settings allows for mapping issue arenas based on the stakeholders that communicate about the topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Among the climate change papers with DOIs, 41.6 % (n = 68,558) were mentioned on Twitter (in total 800,294 tweets), 28.3 % (n = 46,653) were tweeted by at least two Twitter users (in total 775,499 tweets), and 6.0 % (n = 9842 were also mentioned in news outlets. We found that 424,507 hashtags occurred in 621,540 tweets (0.68 hashtags per tweet) which referred to 46,653 papers (9.1 hashtags per tweeted paper). 3 Top-90 author keywords of not tweeted climate change research papers published between 2011 and 2017. [Extracted from the article]

Highlights • Through bibliometrics, we identify core papers and subdisciplines in FBDD research. • FBDD’s emergence was enabled by the transfer of knowledge from academia to industry. • Network analysis shows that university-industry collaborations have grown over time. Fragment-based drug discovery (FBDD) is a highly interdisciplinary field, rich in ideas integrated from pharmaceutical sciences, chemistry, biology, and physics, among others. To enrich our understanding of the development of the field, we used bibliometric techniques to analyze 3642 publications in FBDD, complementing accounts by key practitioners. Mapping its core papers, we found the transfer of knowledge from academia to industry. Co-authorship analysis showed that university–industry collaboration has grown over time. Moreover, we show how ideas from other scientific disciplines have been integrated into the FBDD paradigm. Keyword analysis showed that the field is organized into four interconnected practices: library design, fragment screening, computational methods, and optimization. This study highlights the importance of interactions among various individuals and institutions from diverse disciplines in newly emerging scientific fields. Teaser We study the organizational aspects of the development of fragment-based drug discovery (FBDD), using tools from bibliometrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]