A gazillion people emailed me to tell me that, according to an article in Science, I was one of the “Top 50 Science stars of Twi**er”: to be precise, #30. That was a surprise to me, because I never tw**t, except to announce each post on this site, which is automatically fed to the Evolutionistrue Twi**er site. Never have I issued a single tw**t besides the posts, and, like a cat, I follow no one.
Click on the screenshot if you want to read tabloid journalism in a respectable journal, and see who the others are.
Here’s how they compiled the “star” index (the top three, in order, are Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and Richard Dawkins). The formula is bizarre and convoluted.
The list of most followed scientists compiled here is far from scientific. To identify Twitter science stars, we began with celebrity scientists such as Tyson and checked out which scientists they followed. We also referenced online lists of scientists to follow on Twitter, such as this one by The Huffington Post. If we’ve missed someone who belongs on the top 50 list, do let us know in the comment section. Follower number is, of course, a very crude proxy of influence on Twitter, but it’s the most accessible metric for the purpose of this story.
The question of who counts as a scientist is itself a matter of debate. As a general guideline, we included only those who have completed a Ph.D. degree and published at least one peer-reviewed paper in a peer-reviewed journal. As an exception to this rule, we excluded professional journalists who fit the above criteria.
We recorded the number of Twitter followers for our list on 15 September. To tally the number of citations for each scientist, we over the past month looked up their Google Scholar profiles or, for those without a profile, used estimates produced by the Publish or Perish software, developed by business professor Anne-Wil Harzing of ESCP Europe. Due to limitations of both methods, the citation numbers are only rough estimates. For example, there’s no easy way to distinguish physicist Brian Cox of the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom from physiologist Brian Cox of the University of Toronto in Canada in calculating the former’s citation count. Seven on our top 50 list appear on either the 2014 Thomson Reuters Highly Cited Researchers list (*) or the Scholarometer’s top 100 authors (+) ranking, and each is noted with a symbol.
The Kardashian Index is calculated as follows: In his commentary, using data gathered on 40 scientists, Hall derived a formula for calculating the number of Twitter followers a scientist should have given one’s citation count. The K-index is the ratio of the scientist’s actual follower number to the follower number “warranted” by the citation count.
What I’m proud of: 1) the number of citations I have, despite my recent scientific inactivity as I approach retirement, 2. I never tw**t personally, and I bet I’m the only one like that on the list, and 3. most important, because I’m the ONLY one represented with a cat photo (it’s Hili, by the way). But it’s just weird. My “followers” come from the website, and are only very loosely connected to the number of my citations. In fact, had I published less and tw**ted more, I’d be much higher up on the list, for I’d have a lot more followers expected from my lower number of citations, which raises one’s profile.
At any rate, while I can appreciate the benefits that some people get from Twi**er, I simply don’t have time, and feel that I can’t really say anything substantive in 140 characters. Plus I deplore the Twi**er wars that the atheist/secular community is engaged in, in which some people obsessively comb Twi**er for tw**ts they don’t like, and then blog about them or tw**t back. It’s good for calling attention to new scientific papers, but I’m simply not motivated to do anything more than announce my own posts.
At any rate, the whole idea of “stardom” in science is distasteful, especially when it’s about success on social media. I’m not going to suggest a better index because the whole thing is invidious.
sub
I’ll bet it has something to do with the demonic cat picture on your twitter profile. Fierce kitties always get lots of tweets. I think Churchill said that during the Battle of Britain.
Or as King Richard III exclaimed, “My kingdom for a kitty.”
What about Dr. Drew? He’s a board certified physician and addiction medicine specialist and has got more followers than Tyson!
It’s funny because people take social media very seriously in business as a means to promote themselves/their services/ their business and there are whole companies that do nothing but generate content on their client’s behalf. It’s a whole industry that has sprung up over the last few years.
Yet, Jerry doesn’t even like Twitter and yet he’s has managed to secure a prestigious social media position. This all makes me laugh. It must be irony because irony is funny.
I recognized maybe 12 of them by their picture. I don’t do Tw***er either. But congratulations on your honor!
“like a cat, I follow no one” I love that. And many great artists are just weird, like cat photo substitutes.
“Plus I deplore the Twi**er wars that the atheist/secular community is engaged in, in which some people obsessively comb Twi**er for tw**ts they don’t like, and then blog about them or tw**t back. It’s good for calling attention to new scientific papers, but I’m simply not motivated to do anything more than announce my own posts.
At any rate, the whole idea of “stardom” in science is distasteful, especially when it’s about success on social media. I’m not going to suggest a better index because the whole thing is invidious.”
THANK YOU! 100% agree. I love this site but am loving it more and more (and friendlyatheist) because I am tired of the high school drama of other sites.
I agree. It is off putting & I think the viciousness of it all really prevents a lot of people from engaging in meaningful dialogue.
Hear, hear.
It’s so refreshing to come to this site and know you’re going to get well written, well thought-out, interesting posts on science, atheism, cats, a Hili dialogue or two, boots, food, travel etc.
It’s so much nicer here than on Twi**er, or indeed many other sites.
If little feets
go, “pitter-pat,”
then little tweets
must go, “twitter-twat.”
Wait — wot?
b&
Have you smelled Baihu’s litter box again?
This must be some new vernacular I’m not yet familiar with. Mr. Muth or Aidan, either of you available to offer translation services…?
b&
>
Melikes. There’s something so lovely about the British pronunciation of the word.
Recently, on a web source near you…
Twi**er Wars
It is a period of uncivil war. Rebel
accounts, striking from a hidden
base, have trolled their first spams
against the evil N00b Empire.
I also remind that, as I understand it, Twi**er has found good use in the astronomical community for calling attention to new, short-lived phenomena (novas, say) to pool observatory resources.
Much the same use, really. =D
Interesting story. I do not do twitter or face book for several reasons but certainly age has something to do with it. Privacy would be one of the reasons as well.
The reason some of us follow Jerry’s web is pretty simple – We like cats, free thinking, Evolution and the ability to give us these things with quality.
If “stardom” among scientists means scientists who have a high profile among the general public, then I think it’s a good thing, because having “stars” in the scientific community to look up to can inspire young people to pursue a career in science, and we sure could use more people going into science.
On the down side, I’ve just discovered I’m not a scientist. 🙁 I was working so hard at it, too. (no PhD, though I must’ve helped more than a 50 kids get theirs by now.)
Probably Dawkins would be well advised to stop using Twitter as it has gotten him into a number of brouhahas over the last year or two.
I like Twi**er, but I’ve never understood the intra-atheist community bashing, even though I’ve inadvertently been dragged in a couple of times in the past. However, all the vicious attacks I’ve been subjected to personally have come out of the blue from theist trolls and, weirdly, anti-feminist atheists. (I didn’t know such a thing existed before Twi**er.)
I spend more time here than Twi**er nowadays though – no trolls, but just as many cats.
Twitter just doesn’t do it for me. I don’t get it and I can’t be bothered learning.