Efore adopted: Retweets had been excluded and Original tweets had been classified as getting Science; Nonscience; Unclear; NonEnglish. Tweets inside the NonEnglish category were not additional analysed; an analysis by a native speaker could,naturally,location them in any from the other categories. A standard instance of a tweet classified as Science would be: “Margueron: Symmetry power impacts T,s (but not density) post bounce,but incompressibility parameter doesn’t alter something. #MICRA”. Nonscience tweets were these referring to: common conference management; announcements from publishers or exhibitors; messages that focused on weather or the conference environment; those that attempted humour; the (many) that pointed out meals and drink; and so on. A standard instance of a tweet classified as Nonscience would be: “DSFD_Conference I heard a rumour of salmon. Rather excited! #DSFD”. A typical instance from the Unclear category would be: “Like The Devil ATLASexperiment #LeptonPhoton”. Table consists of data on tweet sort for AstroParticle as well as other conferences. In comparison to Other individuals,a slightly decrease proportion of AstroParticle tweets are Original; PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21666516 an alternative way of expressing this can be that a slightly higher proportion of AstroParticle tweets wereTable Sort of tweet AstroParticle of Original tweets Hyperlink Conversation . ( Original tweets) . ( of Original tweets) . ( of Original tweets) Other folks . ( Original tweets) . ( of Original tweets) . ( of Original tweets)Note that percentages want not sum to : some tweets are neither conversational nor contain a link,although some tweets are conversational in nature as well as include a hyperlink. If retweets are included. of AstroParticle tweets had this dual nature; the figure for Other people is .Scientometrics :Table Content of tweets classified as Original (i.e. AstroParticle tweets as well as other tweets) AstroParticle ( of Science tweets of Nonscience tweets of Unclear tweets of NonEnglish tweets . . . . Other ( . . . .retweets. In AstroParticle conferences. of original tweets had been conversational in nature,as defined by inclusion of an sign. This figure is in agreement with preceding research (Honeycutt and Herring ; Boyd et alwhich suggested that about of tweets are conversational in nature. A rather larger proportion of Other tweets have been conversational: . . Similarly,a higher proportion of Other tweets than AstroParticle tweets contained links vs Table GSK2256294A web contains data on the content material of Original tweets. As is usually observed,the language of tweets is overwhelmingly English. Though there is an inevitable element of subjectivity in classifying tweet content within this way,it seems clear that AstroParticle tweets are much more most likely to focus on scientific issues than are tweets from Other conferences. Understanding the underlying source of this distinction calls for further analysis,however the observations talked about above motivate two tentative recommendations that might be explored in additional detail in a qualitative study. 1st,delegates at Other conferences appear to make use of Twitter in a far more conversational manner,and are perhaps thus a lot more concerned in employing the service for social makes use of,than these at AstroParticle conferences. Second,as described inside the “Twitter activity at conferences” section,AstroParticle conferences are more most likely to include delegates which might be particularly active Twitter users; if the motivation of those delegates is mostly to live tweet regarding the science getting discussed in conference presentations then this would help ex.