Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Review Article

Mining Twitter to Detect Hotspots in Psychology

Published Online:February 04, 2021https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000437

Abstract

Abstract. For identifying psychological hotspot topics, a mere focus on bibliometric data suffers from a publication delay. To overcome this issue, we introduce Twitter mining of ongoing online communication among scientists for the detection of psychological research topics. Specifically, we collected the entire 69,963 tweets posted between August 2007 and July 2020 from 139 accounts of psychology professors, departments, and research institutes from the German-speaking countries, as well as sections of the German Psychological Society (DGPs). To examine whether Twitter topics are hotspots in terms of indicating future publication trends, 346,361 references in the PSYNDEX database were extracted. For determining the additional value of our approach in contrast to traditional conference analysis, we gathered all available conference programs of the DGPs and its sections since 2010 and compared dates of topic emergence. Results revealed 21 topics addressing societal issues (e.g., COVID-19), methodology (e.g., machine learning), scientific research (e.g., replication crisis), and different areas of psychological research. Ten topics indicated an increasing publication trend, particularly topics related to methodology or scientific transparency. Seven Twitter topics emerged earlier on Twitter than at conferences. A total of four topics could be expected neither by bibliometric forecasting nor conference contents: “methodological issues in meta-analyses”, “playfulness”, “preregistration”, and “mobile brain/body imaging”. Taken together, Twitter mining is a worthwhile endeavor for identifying psychological hotspot topics, especially regarding societal issues, novel research methods, and research transparency in psychology. In order to get the most comprehensive picture of research hotspots, Twitter mining is recommended in addition to bibliometric analyses of publication trends and monitoring of conference topics.

References

  • Batagelj, V., Ferligoj, A., & Squazzoni, F. (2017). The emergence of a field: A network analysis of research on peer review. Scientometrics, 113(1), 503–532. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bittermann, A. (2019). Development of a user-friendly app for exploring and analyzing research topics in psychology. In G. CatalanoC. DaraioM. GregoriH. F. MoedG. RuoccoEds., Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 2634–2635). Edizioni Efesto. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.2521 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bittermann, A., & Fischer, A. (2018). How to identify hot topics in psychology using topic modeling. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 226(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000318 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Bittermann, A., & Klos, E. M. (2019). Ist die psychologische Forschung durchlässig für aktuelle gesellschaftliche Themen? Eine szientometrische Analyse am Beispiel Flucht und Migration mithilfe von Topic Modeling.[Does psychological research address current social issues? A scientometric analysis of the example of refugees and migration using topic modeling] Psychologische Rundschau, 70(4), 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042/a000426 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Björk, B. C., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 914–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.09.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Collins, K., Shiffman, D., & Rock, J. (2016). How are scientists using social media in the workplace? PLoS One, 11(10), e0162680. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162680 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Darling, E. S., Shiffman, D., Côté, I. M., & Drew, J. A. (2013). The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 6(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.4033/iee.2013.6.6.f First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Doré, B., Ort, L., Braverman, O., & Ochsner, K. N. (2015). Sadness shifts to anxiety over time and distance from the national tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. Psychological Science, 26(4), 363–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614562218 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e123. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2012 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fischer, D., Schwemmer, C., & Fischbach, K. (2018, April 10). Terror management and Twitter: The case of the 2016 Berlin terrorist attack. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/964dc First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Golder, S. A., & Macy, M. W. (2014). Digital footprints: Opportunities and challenges for online social research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 129–152. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043145 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hadgu, A., & Jäschke, R. (2014). Identifying and analyzing researchers on Twitter. In M. StrohmaierE. T. MeyerC. CattutoEds., Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on Web Science (pp. 23–32). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2615569.2615676 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hilbert, M., & López, P. (2011). The world’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science, 332(6025), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1200970 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ke, Q., Ahn, Y.-Y., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2017). A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter. PLoS One, 12(4), e0175368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175368 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kern, M. L., Park, G., Eichstaedt, J. C., Schwartz, H. A., Sap, M., Smith, L. K., & Ungar, L. H. (2016). Gaining insights from social media language: Methodologies and challenges. Psychological Methods, 21(4), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000091 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Killick, R., Fearnhead, P., & Eckley, I. A. (2012). Optimal detection of changepoints with a linear computational cost. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 107(500), 1590–1598. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2012.737745 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kupferschmidt, K. (2020). A completely new culture of doing research.” Coronavirus outbreak changes how scientists communicate [Blog post]. Science Magazine, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb4761 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Leypunskiy, E., Kıcıman, E., Shah, M., Walch, O. J., Rzhetsky, A., Dinner, A. R., & Rust, M. J. (2018). Geographically resolved rhythms in Twitter use reveal social pressures on daily activity patterns. Current Biology, 28(23), 3763–3775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.016 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mathew, G., Agrawal, A., & Menzies, T. (2017). Trends in topics at SE conferences (1993–2013). In R. BilofEd., Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (pp. 397–398). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Mathioudakis, M., & Koudas, N. (2010). Twittermonitor: Trend detection over the Twitter stream. In A. ElmagarmidD. AgrawalEds., Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data (pp. 1155–1158). Association for Computing Machinery. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mund, C. (2014). Identification of emerging scientific topics in bibliometric databases (Doctoral Dissertation), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. https://publikationen.bibliothek.kit.edu/1000042107/3156624 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Muscanell, N., & Utz, S. (2017). Social networking for scientists: An analysis on how and why academics use ResearchGate. Online Information Review, 41(5), 744–759. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-07-2016-0185 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nulty, P., Theocharis, Y., Popa, S. A., Parnet, O., & Benoit, K. (2016). Social media and political communication in the 2014 elections to the European Parliament. Electoral Studies, 44, 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.04.014 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 2(1–2), 1–135. https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000011 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N., & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing, 24(3), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1087/20110306 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ruths, D., & Pfeffer, J. (2014). Social media for large studies of behavior. Science, 346(6213), 1063–1064. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.346.6213.1063 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schui, G. (2004). Internationalität und Internationalisierung der deutschsprachigen Psychologie aus bibliometrischer Perspektive – Methoden und Befunde zu Geschichte und aktueller Entwicklung, [Internationality and Internationalization of psychology from the German speaking countries from a bibliometric perspective – Methods and results on history and current development] (Doctoral dissertation). University of Trier. https://doi.org/10.25353/ubtr-xxxx-012f-9ddc/ First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Small, H., & Upham, P. (2009). Citation structure of an emerging research area on the verge of application. Scientometrics, 79(2), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0424-0 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Steinmetz, H., Batzdorfer, V., & Bosnjak, M. (2020, June). The ZPID lockdown measures dataset. ZPID Science Information Online. 20(1). https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.3019 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Tuleya, L. G. (Ed.). (2007). Thesaurus of psychological index terms (11th ed.). American Psychological Association. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature News, 512(7513), 126–129. https://doi.org/10.1038/512126a First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Vowe, G. (2016). Wissenschaftskommunikation 2.0? [Science communication 2.0?] Publizistik, 61(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-015-0249-1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wissenschaftsrat. (2018). Perspektiven der Psychologie in Deutschland [Perspectives of psychology in Germany]. https://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/6825-18.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Yan, X., Guo, J., Lan, Y., & Cheng, X. (2013). A biterm topic model for short texts. In D. SchwalbeV. A. Fernandes AlmeidaH. GlaserR. A. Baeza-YatesS. B. MoonEds., Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 1445–1456). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2488388.2488514 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Zarrinkalam, F., Kahani, M., & Bagheri, E. (2019). User interest prediction over future unobserved topics on social networks. Information Retrieval Journal, 22(1–2), 93–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10791-018-9337-y First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Zubiaga, A., Spina, D., Martínez, R., & Fresno, V. (2015). Real‐time classification of Twitter trends. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(3), 462–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23186 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar