Plain the differences shown in Table .ConclusionThe above analysis of scientific conferences suggests that Twitter is made use of in a quantitatively and qualitatively different manner at conferences devoted to the physics of elementary particles and fields,and to geophysics,astronomy,and astrophysics,than at conferences in other fields of physics. The analysis showed that delegates at an Astro Particle conference are 4 instances more likely to be participating in an event exactly where Twitter is used than are delegates at Other conferences. At conferences exactly where Twitter is made use of,an AstroParticle delegate is . times much more probably to reside tweet. The distribution of conference tweet prices (tweets PubMed ID: per delegate every day) shows considerable variations,with prices normally becoming higher at AstroParticle conferences. If becoming extremely Twitteractive at a conference is defined as posting or far more tweets in the occasion then a person AstroParticle delegate is times a lot more likely to become very active than a person delegate at Other conferences. Finally,tweets from AstroParticle conferences are far more probably to concentrate on science. An obvious query arises: what could be the cause for the observed differences in Twitter useScientometrics :The information collected throughout current investigation is insufficient,by itself,to decide the origin of those differences. Nonetheless,a more detailed evaluation with the very active Twitter 4,5,7-Trihydroxyflavone web accounts suggests a possible explanation for the variations,which further qualitative investigation would be able to corroborate or discount. As mentioned in the “Twitter activity at conferences” section above,there had been many extremely active Twitter accounts during conferences. Some belonged to organisations (conference organisers tweeting event facts,analysis groups tweeting news,and so on) but the majority belonged to named individuals. In total,delegates at Astro Particle conferences and delegates at Other conferences have been highly active Twitter users. An analysis from the person accounts highlighted a clear difference between the two populations. Highly active accounts at Other conferences had a median number of followers of ; this can be totally in line together with the function of Darling et al. ,pointed out in “The Twitter platform” section,which identified that the median variety of followers of a sample of bioscientists was . On the other hand,highly active accounts at AstroParticle conferences had pretty much double the median quantity of followers: . An examination with the on the web Twitter biographies from the hugely active customers highlights a further substantial distinction between the two groups: ( from of active AstroParticle Twitter users explicitly mention some aspect of science outreach whereas for Others the quantity is only ( from. These figures give rise to the hypothesis that the observed distinction in Twitter use at conferences is because of the different requirements on the two groups. As noted in the “Twitter use in scholarly scientific communication” section,the Twitter platform already meets a wide variety of use circumstances,so within this sense the suggestion isn’t surprising. Particle physics and astrophysics are each examples of “big science”,with large multinational investigation teams and facilities that frequently have a devoted press office. Both disciplines have a fairly higher public profile. Inside this environment public outreach is actually a wellrecognised activity,and it may be that scientists in these disciplines view Twitter,in addition to other social media tools.