Corrigendum to [‘To tweet or not to tweet?’ A study of the use of Twitter by scholarly book publishers in Social Sciences and Humanities’]

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Standard

Corrigendum to [‘To tweet or not to tweet?’ A study of the use of Twitter by scholarly book publishers in Social Sciences and Humanities’]. / Wang, Yajie; Zuccala, Alesia Ann; Hou, Haiyan; Hu, Zhigang.

I: Journal of Informetrics, Bind 15, Nr. 3, 101170, 2021.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt

Harvard

Wang, Y, Zuccala, AA, Hou, H & Hu, Z 2021, 'Corrigendum to [‘To tweet or not to tweet?’ A study of the use of Twitter by scholarly book publishers in Social Sciences and Humanities’]', Journal of Informetrics, bind 15, nr. 3, 101170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101351

APA

Wang, Y., Zuccala, A. A., Hou, H., & Hu, Z. (2021). Corrigendum to [‘To tweet or not to tweet?’ A study of the use of Twitter by scholarly book publishers in Social Sciences and Humanities’]. Journal of Informetrics, 15(3), [101170]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101351

Vancouver

Wang Y, Zuccala AA, Hou H, Hu Z. Corrigendum to [‘To tweet or not to tweet?’ A study of the use of Twitter by scholarly book publishers in Social Sciences and Humanities’]. Journal of Informetrics. 2021;15(3). 101170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101351

Author

Wang, Yajie ; Zuccala, Alesia Ann ; Hou, Haiyan ; Hu, Zhigang. / Corrigendum to [‘To tweet or not to tweet?’ A study of the use of Twitter by scholarly book publishers in Social Sciences and Humanities’]. I: Journal of Informetrics. 2021 ; Bind 15, Nr. 3.

Bibtex

@article{cfc6a204f292432498b715604199e67d,
title = "Corrigendum to [{\textquoteleft}To tweet or not to tweet?{\textquoteright} A study of the use of Twitter by scholarly book publishers in Social Sciences and Humanities{\textquoteright}]",
abstract = "Publishers might believe the use of Twitter will help promote their scholarly books. In this study, we analyzed 18,691 books indexed by the Book Citation Index (BKCI) in the Social Sciences and Humanities, published between 2014 and 2018, and proposed two indicators describing the Twitter engagement of publishers: relative coverage and relative receptivity. The results show significant disciplinary and year differences in publishers{\textquoteright} Twitter engagement For instance, in all 10 disciplines, small and medium-sized publishers generally prefer to promote their books (high relative coverage) on Twitter, but the majority of publishers have low relative coverage in these 5 years. In addition, results show that books mentioned by their publishers{\textquoteright} Twitter accounts get significantly higher Twitter mentions (high relative receptivity) as compared to books mentioned by non-publisher{\textquoteright} Twitter accounts. The results suggest that scholarly book publishers should engage in social media activity to increase Twitter mentions and visibility of their books",
author = "Yajie Wang and Zuccala, {Alesia Ann} and Haiyan Hou and Zhigang Hu",
year = "2021",
doi = "10.1016/j.joi.2022.101351",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
journal = "Journal of Informetrics",
issn = "1751-1577",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Corrigendum to [‘To tweet or not to tweet?’ A study of the use of Twitter by scholarly book publishers in Social Sciences and Humanities’]

AU - Wang, Yajie

AU - Zuccala, Alesia Ann

AU - Hou, Haiyan

AU - Hu, Zhigang

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - Publishers might believe the use of Twitter will help promote their scholarly books. In this study, we analyzed 18,691 books indexed by the Book Citation Index (BKCI) in the Social Sciences and Humanities, published between 2014 and 2018, and proposed two indicators describing the Twitter engagement of publishers: relative coverage and relative receptivity. The results show significant disciplinary and year differences in publishers’ Twitter engagement For instance, in all 10 disciplines, small and medium-sized publishers generally prefer to promote their books (high relative coverage) on Twitter, but the majority of publishers have low relative coverage in these 5 years. In addition, results show that books mentioned by their publishers’ Twitter accounts get significantly higher Twitter mentions (high relative receptivity) as compared to books mentioned by non-publisher’ Twitter accounts. The results suggest that scholarly book publishers should engage in social media activity to increase Twitter mentions and visibility of their books

AB - Publishers might believe the use of Twitter will help promote their scholarly books. In this study, we analyzed 18,691 books indexed by the Book Citation Index (BKCI) in the Social Sciences and Humanities, published between 2014 and 2018, and proposed two indicators describing the Twitter engagement of publishers: relative coverage and relative receptivity. The results show significant disciplinary and year differences in publishers’ Twitter engagement For instance, in all 10 disciplines, small and medium-sized publishers generally prefer to promote their books (high relative coverage) on Twitter, but the majority of publishers have low relative coverage in these 5 years. In addition, results show that books mentioned by their publishers’ Twitter accounts get significantly higher Twitter mentions (high relative receptivity) as compared to books mentioned by non-publisher’ Twitter accounts. The results suggest that scholarly book publishers should engage in social media activity to increase Twitter mentions and visibility of their books

U2 - 10.1016/j.joi.2022.101351

DO - 10.1016/j.joi.2022.101351

M3 - Journal article

VL - 15

JO - Journal of Informetrics

JF - Journal of Informetrics

SN - 1751-1577

IS - 3

M1 - 101170

ER -

ID: 333705451