Highly recommended (and very condensed) a talk by the excellent Mike Cadogan (LifeInTheFastLane @sandnsurf).
in 5 minutes Mike shows us how to begin to manage your digital footprint. In other words taking charge of what people find out about you in a google search. Don’t let anyone take over your digital identity.
Looking forward to the next installment Mike!
Thinking about members of my family, and friends, who are in their 50′s and 60′s doing battle (which is how they would view it) with the latest technology, the questions asked are often about learning to do simple things like email, using search engines, what a blog is (and what is the difference between that and a website?).
This is interesting research from the American Life project run by PEW. For those, like my folks, who are figuring out what the internet is, a smart phone (like an iPhone) would help them as they can be very user friendly. Instead, they are often too intimidated to try it out. As it is, according to this research only 22% of Baby Boomers have a smart phone. And they are, perhaps, those that would benefit a great deal from them.
I first published this article on BodyInMind – a pain research site that I also am involved in. The tricky question of how we measure, properly measure, the impact in the clinic of disseminating research using social media has come up time and time again in our meetings and as yet we have found no answer.
A recent article in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR)[1] looked at whether it is feasible to measure social impact of, and public attention to, newly published research articles by analysing buzz in social media – specifically twitter. It also asked whether these metrics are sensitive and specific enough to predict highly cited articles – something that would be valuable for researchers to know.
It might seem a strange thing to use. Twitter is a vehicle for people to communicate to their chosen network, limited to 140 characters per ‘tweet’. How can this chatter be used to predict whether a journal article will be highly cited in the future?
How is research evaluated at the moment? Well at least in two ways. Citations measure the productivity and impact of a researcher, and the impact factor evaluates the impact of a journal. However, citations only measure uptake within the scientific community and take a long time to gather. The impact of research in the real world and uptake by the public is very hard to measure and currently there is no really accurate way of doing it, something which this research hoped to address.
So how was this research done? Over a period of 3.5 years tweets with links to JMIR were gathered and from these 1600 tweets (or ‘tweetations’[2]) talking about 55 articles in a 2 year period were analyzed. Social media impact was compared against data from Scopus and Google Scholar 17-29 months later (which is how long it takes to gather citations traditionally).
Using this data a new algorithm was devised and tested to see if it was possible to gauge accurately whether an article would be highly cited within one week of publication in JMIR (bearing in mind that this can take up to 2 years to find out).
The author found that if an article is highly tweeted then there is a 75% likelihood that it would end up in the top quartile of all articles of an issue, ranked by citations. Most tweets were sent on the day of publication: 44% of all tweets in a 2 month period, 18% on the following day followed by a rapid decay. In other words, tweets can predict highly cited articles within the first 3 days of article publication. Low impact articles are tweeted and retweeted mainly on day 0 and 1. Highly cited articles continue to be retweeted widely.
We discussed this article as part of our weekly BiM meeting – along with eating some Very Excellent Tiramisu that Luke made – and there are some questions as to bias in this article. The first is that the author, Gunther Eysenbach is founder and editor-in-chief of the JMIR. This journal is open access (freely available) and covers research, information and communication in the healthcare field. As a topic this article is well suited to the journal but it may have been better if it had been peer reviewed and published in another journal, PLoS one perhaps.
The second is that the author is coining new phrases (such as twimpact[3]) introduced as part of his research and has set up websites with that name in the hope, we presume, that the algorithm and metric becomes widely used.[CORRECTION: the Twimpact website is NOT associated with Professor Eysenbach or this research - see his comment on the original article at bodyinmind.org)
There are also some caveats with the research which the author himself points out. Although top cited articles can be predicted from tweeted articles, social impact measures can only complement traditional citation metrics but not replace them.
For example, tweetations are a metric for social impact and how quickly new knowledge is taken up by public, whereas citations are a metric for scholarly impact. They measure uptake by or interest of different audiences. The twimpact factor (cumulative number of tweets after a certain number of days) complements the impact factor in that it is a useful metric to measure uptake of research findings resonating with the public in real time.
At the moment we also don’t know if the twitter mentions are the result of someone influential tweeting and people getting on the popularity bandwagon or if it reflects the actual quality of the article. It only shows us how the question or topic (and possibly conclusions if the article has actually been read) resonates with Twitter. In other words we may be measuring the structure of the network and attributes of social media communities rather than the attributes of the information itself.
Popularity is a useful measure for commercial enterprises but those that do not resonate with the general public, eg low income old age groups, and who are not represented on twitter may lead to further marginalization of these groups.
This is still a very new field and the author (as the editor of JMIR) has issued a standing call for papers to ‘assess the robustness of these social media metrics and their ability to detect signals among the noise of social media chatter’.
He rightly points out that attentiveness to issues is a prerequisite for social change, and tweets are a useful metric to measure attentiveness to a specific scholarly publication. For us at BiM I wonder whether we can use new social media avenues to get the explain pain message out more effectively. What we can’t yet do is measure what effect, if any, this has at the level of patient care.
[1] Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can Tweets Predict Citations? Metrics of Social Impact Based on Twitter and Correlation with Traditional Metrics of Scientific Impact Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13 (4) DOI: 10.2196/jmir.2012
[2] Tweetation – twitter citation eg for seven days tw7. (skewed by publication date)
[3] twimpact factor – TWIF7 = cumulative number of tweetations 7 days after publication
Every year more and more businesses turn to social media to get their message out, many are not sure on the return that they are getting or the effectiveness of their strategy. Hubspot publish a yearly report on the cost effectiveness of some of these methods.
Traditional ways of getting your message out there (outbound shotgun approach using newspaper adverts, direct mail, flyers, tradeshows etc) can be prohibitively expensive, particularly for small companies. Inbound marketing (where people opt-in using social media such as blogs, facebook, twitter) provide new and very efficient ways of reaching an audience.
As an example, I do some work for a not for profit organisation BodyInMind.org (in fact we make no money at all) whose main aim is to disseminate high quality research on the topic of pain research. Using social media has proved a very effective means of not only reaching a niche audience but of enabling them to spread the message further.
If you are looking for marketing advice this report will give some good pointers as to what is effective and why. Along with evidence as to which platforms work best depending on what it is you are looking to do
The 2012 State of Inbound Marketing
You are just starting out. Brand new website. Brand new product. The midnight oil has been burned, energy levels are high. But…. visitors to the website are low. Social media followers grow at an infinitesimal slow pace, and you wonder if you are doing it right. Chances are, you are. Stick with it.
This is from the veritable hubspot team on the success of a landscape gardening firm. Some may think it would be hard to blog, facebook and tweet about lawns but this is how they did it. And what I really like is that they show the results comparing some of the things they did before and after.
On the health side this is a great article on how a doctor uses google to market and recruit patients. A website is not enough.
According to CBC news last year Allfacebook.com estimates three Facebook account users will die every minute. That’s 1.78 million people in 2011 with accounts in limbo. Adam Ostrow (editor-in-chief of Mashable) gives a 5 minute talk at TED:
Many of us have a social media presence — a virtual personality made up of status updates, tweets and connections, stored in the cloud… What happens to that personality after you’ve died? Could it … live on?
For some more links on ‘What happens to social media when I die‘ see HCSMANZ’s site which has gathered some good info and discussion
