I would strongly suggest that the authors also update the arXiv version of this paper (is this even possible at PeerJ?), which is entirely possible, and they can point out in the comments field the availability of the paper here (with doi + citation). I read somewhere that the authors felt that this paper should go into some sort of preprint service, so submitted version 2 here after version 1 was placed in the arXiv, and then the paper is also submitted to another journal. Respectfully: what on earth do they think the arXiv is? Some sort of glorified filing cabinet? (Ahem, rant over) I do agree that perhaps for the audience they seek, PeerJ Preprints would be more highly visible; this is fine, but please don't leave the arXiv version of the paper an orphan.
If the publisher allows posting of "post-prints" or "author accepted manuscript" (etc), please put that in the arXiv too as version 3 - with cross references to the journal. Ideally, the authors could put the arXiv/PeerJ Preprint references into the published paper, preferably in publicly visibly metadata.
Thanks for this interesting paper. I think the "article lifecycle" perspective is a useful one, complementing the various "social media guide for scientists" (scientist, not paper, point of view) out there.
One observation: the paper seems to suggest the science/scientist's presence in social media will be through the scientist directly interacting with and generating content into the social networks. I would say that in many cases it will be more likely or sensible for this dissemination to occur through mediation of other parties/systems, such as publishers or peers or journalists/communicators.
I explore these possibilities in a post from January, "How To Bring Academics to the Social-Media Party? Indirectly." (http://tjm.org/2013/01/14/how-to-bring-academics-to-the-social-media-party-indirectly/).
Strong, direct social-media engagement involves significant learning, time, risk, and particular skills. I'm not convinced we can, should, or need to expect a large portion of scientists to devote this effort, given all the other demands on them. In many cases, intermediaries may taken on parts of this -- just as they do the running of journal platforms, scholarly societies, conferences, etc. I think social media should and gradually will be just woven into many existing activities and tools: in the words of Mark Weiser, "the most profound technologies are those that disappear."
@tmccormick / http://tjm.org / Palo Alto, CA, USA
The claim in line 181 that the median number of followers of these scientists is 730 times the size of the department seems to be an error. Median number of followers is reported as 241, median department size 33, so correct ratio is 7.3 (and only one decimal place appropriate). Unfortunately this order of magnitude typo has made it to an infographic: http://www.americanscientist.org/blog/pub/the-benefits-of-twitter-for-scientists
I understand this was corrected to "seven" in publication, but the infographic referred to above is based on the preprint 730 figure.
You can also choose to receive updates via daily or weekly email digests. If you are following multiple preprints then we will send you no more than one email per day or week based on your preferences.
Note: You are now also subscribed to the subject areas of this preprint and will receive updates in the daily or weekly email digests if turned on. You can add specific subject areas through your profile settings.
Usage since published - updated daily