Efore adopted: Retweets had been excluded and Original tweets were classified as being Science; Nonscience; Unclear; NonEnglish. Tweets within the NonEnglish category were not further analysed; an analysis by a native speaker could,needless to say,spot them in any of the other categories. A standard instance of a tweet classified as Science could be: “Margueron: Symmetry energy impacts T,s (but not density) post bounce,but incompressibility parameter doesn’t change anything. #MICRA”. Nonscience tweets had been those referring to: common conference management; announcements from publishers or exhibitors; messages that focused on climate or the conference atmosphere; those that attempted humour; the (numerous) that pointed out meals and drink; and so on. A common example of a tweet classified as Nonscience could be: “DSFD_Conference I heard a rumour of salmon. Quite excited! #DSFD”. A typical instance in the Unclear category could be: “Like The Devil ATLASexperiment #LeptonPhoton”. Table contains data on tweet type for AstroParticle and other conferences. Compared to Other folks,a slightly reduced proportion of AstroParticle tweets are Original; PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21666516 an option way of expressing this really is that a slightly larger proportion of AstroParticle tweets wereTable Form of tweet AstroParticle of Original tweets Hyperlink Conversation . ( Original tweets) . ( of Original tweets) . ( of Original tweets) Others . ( Original tweets) . ( of Original tweets) . ( of Original tweets)Note that percentages need not sum to : some tweets are neither conversational nor include a link,though some tweets are conversational in nature as well as contain a link. If retweets are incorporated. 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 and also other tweets) AstroParticle ( of Science tweets of Nonscience tweets of Unclear tweets of NonEnglish tweets . . . . Other ( . . . .retweets. In AstroParticle conferences. of original tweets were conversational in nature,as defined by inclusion of an sign. This figure is in agreement with prior studies (Honeycutt and Herring ; Boyd et alwhich suggested that about of tweets are conversational in nature. A rather larger proportion of Other tweets had been conversational: . . Similarly,a greater proportion of Other tweets than AstroParticle tweets contained hyperlinks vs Table includes data around the content of Original tweets. As is often observed,the language of tweets is overwhelmingly English. Even though there is an inevitable element of subjectivity in classifying tweet content within this way,it seems clear that AstroParticle tweets are much more probably to focus on scientific troubles than are tweets from Other conferences. Understanding the underlying supply of this get SPQ distinction calls for additional research,however the observations pointed out above motivate two tentative recommendations that might be explored in extra detail inside a qualitative study. 1st,delegates at Other conferences appear to utilize Twitter within a additional conversational manner,and are possibly consequently a lot more concerned in making use of the service for social utilizes,than those at AstroParticle conferences. Second,as described in the “Twitter activity at conferences” section,AstroParticle conferences are more likely to include delegates that happen to be exceptionally active Twitter users; when the motivation of these delegates is primarily to reside tweet about the science getting discussed in conference presentations then this would support ex.