Social media is changing — as we all reconsider our approaches and channels, we asked the community to weigh in with their response to the question, “How has your / your organization’s approach to social media changed in the last year?”
With yet another stumble from Twitter/X, Angela Cochran looks at the numbers and asks whether all the efforts journals have put into building and maintaining journal Twitter accounts have been worth it.
Last January we wrote a group post about “Twexit” and with the launch of Threads we wondered how the Chefs were feeling about the emerging and existing social media options.
It’s conference season in scholarly communications. Between them, the Scholarly Kitchen Chefs have been / will be at 9 events around the world in the 6 week stretch from early April to mid May. In a series of “Smorgasbord” posts, Chefs will share some of the key themes emerging for our sector. This week: Charlie Rapple reports from EARMA, Roy Kaufman from the London Book Fair, and David Crotty from STM.
The Data Hazards project looks at the problems in applying traditional ethical values to research that uses machine learning and artificial intelligence.
The brave new world post-Twitter, or post-the Old Twitter, or has anything really changed? Chefs ponder the new social media.
After making up a false claim about a nonexistent study done by the AAAS, the AI software admitted that it made a mistake and then apologized.
Another “mixed bag” post from us — Is it time to leave Twitter? How can we incentivize journals and authors to take up open science practices? What is “involution” and is DEIA the solution?
A new type of post from us today, offering a smorgasbord of opinions on topics including the ongoing Twitter/Elon Musk saga, just what “equitable access” to the literature means, the ongoing lack of experimental controls in one area of bibliometric analysis, and whether journals are more like a gate or a sewer.
Twitter does not increase citations, a reanalysis of author data shows. Did the authors p-hack their data?
When a reputable journal refuses to get involved with a questionable paper, science looks less like a self-correcting enterprise and more like a way to amass media attention.
We stand by our data. We just won’t share it or believe that you replicated our study.
Scientific authorship comes with benefits, but also responsibilities. If authors are unwilling to explain their work, editors must step up to defend their journal.
A paper linking tweets and citations comes under attack, but more from the authors’ inability to answer even basic questions about their paper and resistance to share their data.
A brief review of studies linking social media and article-level performance.