Is Social Media a Viable Platform for Scientific Research?
In an age where we have nearly infinite access to the internet, we still fight a battle of accessibility when it comes to scientific research. Despite the research being publicly funded and supported by tax dollars and human subjects, it is often the case that that is the extent of public involvement. Even those who participated directly in the study will not be informed of the results nor be able to access the work once it has been published without paying for it. So academic research remains as a publicly funded commodity that is privately distributed by high-impact journals that cannot be accessed without paying to do so.
Further, the academic industry has become obsessed with citation counts as a means to justify the quality of the work produced. Meaning that if one study is used 10 times as a reference for other work and another is used 4 times, then the one used 10 times will register as better regardless of content. Author Stefanie Haustein drives home the absurdity of this phenomenon, in her article, Grand Challenges in Altmetrics, by saying that this is the case despite citation counts being “inherently subjective, motivationally messy and susceptible to abuse.” Additionally, she writes that even citation analysts had no clear idea about what exactly they were measuring and the interpretation of citations as indicators of impact still remains disputed by many individuals.
The scientific journal has changed very little in the course of its 350-year lifespan. Yet, it is still the number one trusted source for research. It seems very clear that the use of these journals and citation counts are old and outdated, yet unfortunately we still do not have an alternative for our main research distributing system… But perhaps there is somewhere available we can go to rectify this issue, we just aren’t sure how to utilize it yet. Social media platforms provide great opportunity to disseminate information and knowledge at high rates to massive audiences. Now, this idea comes with its challenges, but it is far from out of the question.
Haustein explains altmetrics in her article which are commonly understood as online metrics that measure scholarly impact through way alternative to traditional citation. They comprise anything from quick, and sometimes automated mentions in micro-posts, to long elaborate discussions in expert recommendations. Essentially, they use data of social media to explain both the volume and nature of attention that research receives online.
The main challenges of altmetrics that Haustein puts forward are explained in summary as the following:
1. Heterogeneity – Content on social media is very diverse in nature.
For example, most people on social media fall into a niche, whether it be art, music, nature photography, sports, food, etc. You can ultimately search anything and find a stream for it.
2. Data quality – The fact that content can be constantly altered and deleted creating room for error in accuracy, consistency, and replicability.
For example, Wikipedia can be publicly edited, as well as anything on every social media platform creating challenges for many studies as it is difficult when there is a constant flux in content.
3. Dependencies – Altmetrics depend on social media platforms as service providers. If any one of them discontinued or ceased to exist, an entire data source would be lost.
We have seen public networking sites in the past start strong then fade until they no longer are relevant or used, websites like MySpace and Nexopia are examples of this.
The challenges Haustein presents are valid, and the main reason this has yet to take off. However, the reality is that everything is constantly changing in the world we live in and there is no two ways around it. It’s simply unrealistic to keep the same structure for 350 years and still say it’s the best way. I believe there are solutions to the presented challenges to create new opportunities in information dissemination, as well as start to close the gap in the battle to public knowledge.
Firstly, I think sites like ResearchGate have a head start on this issue. They have essentially made a whole new social media platform geared specifically towards academics. Free to sign up for and access, with similar formats to current sites but specifically for academic research. Upon signing up they ask you to select one of the following categories you fit into: Academic or Student, Corporate, government or NGO, Medical or Not a Researcher (journalist, citizen scientists or anyone interested). From there you select your discipline, your areas of interest, and they suggest researchers for you to follow based on your answers. This gives everyone the ability to chime in to discussions with professionals and be apart of new studies. Further making it accessible to ask questions and seek answers. Sites like this are the future of academic research and should be looked at as an example for the most optimum structure for the dissemination and accessibility of research.
Secondly, I would suggest adapting some of the more popular mainstream sites to be able to do this as well; Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and so on. However, to address the current challenges as put forward by Haustein, I propose introducing an academic specific verification for those planning on using their accounts for research publication purposes. Social media platforms already have a way to “verify” accounts, commonly done with a little blue check mark next to their name. This is currently used for public figures like famous musicians, actors and actresses, athletes, and others. Using that idea, perhaps it would be possible for researchers to get a verification like this – a different color check mark to indicate that the person is verified for scholarly research. In place would be an application process similar to that of submitting work to a traditional journal. You have to submit your work and have it reviewed by researchers to ensure that it is both trustworthy and high quality. I believe something as small as this on a popular social media forum would open a world of opportunity. With the current tools already available through hashtags and more, the means to circulate new research would expand tremendously, and find so many more eager eyes and curious souls.
While there is an inherent issue with our current system of publicly funded and privately distributed research, there is opportunity for this to be corrected. This won’t happen quickly, but with the right tools in place for those passionate about open access for all, one day we will get there. I think there is a huge and very attainable opportunity with the use of social media, I am hopeful for the future of open access and remain optimistic about the possibilities.