Search

This article aims to exploit social exchanges on scientific literature, specifically tweets, to analyse social media users' sentiments towards publications within a research field. First, we employ the SentiStrength tool, extended with newly created lexicon terms, to classify the sentiments of 6,482,260 tweets associated with 1,083,535 publications provided by Altmetric.com. Then, we propose harmonic means-based statistical measures to generate a specialised lexicon, using positive and negative sentiment scores and frequency metrics. Next, we adopt a novel article-level summarisation approach to domain-level sentiment analysis to gauge the opinion of social media users on Twitter about the scientific literature. Last, we propose and employ an aspect-based analytical approach to mine users' expressions relating to various aspects of the article, such as tweets on its title, abstract, methodology, conclusion or results section. We show that research communities exhibit dissimilar sentiments towards their respective fields. The analysis of the field-wise distribution of article aspects shows that in Medicine, Economics, Business and Decision Sciences, tweet aspects are focused on the results section. In contrast, in Physics and Astronomy, Materials Sciences and Computer Science, these aspects are focused on the methodology section. Overall, the study helps us to understand the sentiments of online social exchanges of the scientific community on scientific literature. Specifically, such a fine-grained analysis may help research communities in improving their social media exchanges about the scientific articles to disseminate their scientific findings effectively and to further increase their societal impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the study is to (a) contribute to annotating an Altmetrics dataset across five disciplines, (b) undertake sentiment analysis using various machine learning and natural language processing--based algorithms, (c) identify the best-performing model and (d) provide a Python library for sentiment analysis of an Altmetrics dataset. First, the researchers gave a set of guidelines to two human annotators familiar with the task of related tweet annotation of scientific literature. They duly labelled the sentiments, achieving an inter-annotator agreement (IAA) of 0.80 (Cohen's Kappa). Then, the same experiments were run on two versions of the dataset: one with tweets in English and the other with tweets in 23 languages, including English. Using 6388 tweets about 300 papers indexed in Web of Science, the effectiveness of employed machine learning and natural language processing models was measured by comparing with well-known sentiment analysis models, that is, Senti-Strength and Sentiment140, as the baseline. It was proved that Support Vector Machine with uni-gram outperformed all the other classifiers and baseline methods employed, with an accuracy of over 85%, followed by Logistic Regression at 83% accuracy and Naı¨ve Bayes at 80%. The precision, recall and F1 scores for Support Vector Machine, Logistic Regression and Naı¨ve Bayes were (0.89, 0.86, 0.86), (0.86, 0.83, 0.80) and (0.85, 0.81, 0.76), respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditional bibliometric techniques gauge the impact of research through quantitative indices based on the citations data. However, due to the lag time involved in the citation-based indices, it may take years to comprehend the full impact of an article. This paper seeks to measure the early impact of research articles through the sentiments expressed in tweets about them. We claim that cited articles in either positive or neutral tweets have a more significant impact than those not cited at all or cited in negative tweets. We used the SentiStrength tool and improved it by incorporating new opinion-bearing words into its sentiment lexicon pertaining to scientific domains. Then, we classified the sentiment of 6,482,260 tweets linked to 1,083,535 publications covered by Altmetric.com. Using positive and negative tweets as an independent variable, and the citation count as the dependent variable, linear regression analysis showed a weak positive prediction of high citation counts across 16 broad disciplines in Scopus. Introducing an additional indicator to the regression model, i.e. 'number of unique Twitter users', improved the adjusted R-squared value of regression analysis in several disciplines. Overall, an encouraging positive correlation between tweet sentiments and citation counts showed that Twitter-based opinion may be exploited as a complementary predictor of literature's early impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]