Efore adopted: Retweets were excluded and Original tweets have been classified as being Science; Nonscience; Unclear; NonEnglish. Tweets within the NonEnglish category weren’t additional analysed; an evaluation by a native speaker could,needless to say,spot them in any with the other categories. A typical instance of a tweet classified as Science would be: “Margueron: Symmetry energy affects T,s (but not density) post bounce,but incompressibility parameter doesn’t adjust something. #MICRA”. Nonscience tweets were those referring to: general conference management; announcements from publishers or exhibitors; messages that focused on climate or the conference environment; these that attempted humour; the (numerous) that described food and drink; and so on. A common instance of a tweet classified as Nonscience would be: “DSFD_Conference I heard a rumour of salmon. Pretty excited! #DSFD”. A standard instance in the Unclear category will be: “Like The Devil ATLASexperiment #LeptonPhoton”. Table consists of data on tweet variety for AstroParticle and other conferences. In comparison with Other people,a slightly decrease proportion of AstroParticle tweets are Original; PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21666516 an option way of expressing that is that a slightly larger proportion of AstroParticle tweets wereTable Kind of tweet AstroParticle of Original tweets Hyperlink Conversation . ( Original tweets) . ( of Original tweets) . ( of Original tweets) Other people . ( Original tweets) . ( of Original tweets) . ( of Original tweets)Note that percentages need not sum to : some tweets are neither conversational nor include a hyperlink,while some tweets are conversational in nature as well as include a link. If retweets are included. of AstroParticle tweets had this dual nature; the figure for Other folks is .Scientometrics :Table Content material of tweets classified as Original (i.e. AstroParticle tweets along with 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 studies (Honeycutt and Herring ; Boyd et alwhich recommended that about of tweets are conversational in nature. A rather larger proportion of Other tweets had been conversational: . . Similarly,a higher proportion of Other tweets than AstroParticle tweets contained hyperlinks vs Table consists of data around the content material of Original tweets. As is often seen,the language of tweets is overwhelmingly English. Although there’s an inevitable element of subjectivity in classifying tweet content material in this way,it seems clear that AstroParticle tweets are a lot more most likely to concentrate on scientific challenges than are tweets from Other conferences. Understanding the underlying source of this Ribocil-C difference needs additional analysis,but the observations pointed out above motivate two tentative recommendations that might be explored in additional detail inside a qualitative study. Initial,delegates at Other conferences seem to use Twitter in a more conversational manner,and are perhaps hence additional concerned in applying the service for social utilizes,than these at AstroParticle conferences. Second,as described inside the “Twitter activity at conferences” section,AstroParticle conferences are more likely to contain delegates that are really active Twitter customers; in the event the motivation of these delegates is primarily to live tweet concerning the science being discussed in conference presentations then this would help ex.