It’s a new year and that may mean new diets, exercise routines, and productivity plans. But what about a “Twitter break” – or perhaps an X-odus? Elon Musk’s “handling” of the platform has led to considerable soul searching as many, including those in the analytical science community, ponder migrating to microblogging alternative Bluesky – indeed many already have. But I’m beginning to wonder whether scientists really need another Twitter.
Platforms like X are thought to be useful for disseminating research – and several studies have found that widely shared papers on X are more likely to be cited. But what if relevant and impactful papers are simply tweeted about and cited more? As it happens, one study involving 13 scientists with respectable follower counts randomly selected five papers, and tweeted one while retaining the others as controls; they found that the overall increase in citation counts after three years was not statistically significant.
What about networking and discussion? Although there are important conversations undoubtedly taking place on X, distractions are a feature, not a bug of any cybernetic/algorithmic global communications platform. In other words, when you’re restricted in character count and one click away from the latest emotionally charged hot take, it can feel like trying to quietly converse in a crowded bar with music blaring. And with the resurgence of smaller online communities, including e-newsletters (of which The Analytical Scientist has several!), Substack blogs, podcasts, and Discord servers, perhaps scientists would be happier hanging out at the quiet pub over the road (I’ll see you there from 8pm).
Newsletters
Receive the latest analytical science news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.
