One of the joys of Twitter for me is seeing people getting excited online when they get a paper accepted. Or a conference invitation. These are great things to short via a quick tweet. Sometimes, but not always, there are congratulatory replies, which adds to our sense of science Twitter community. There is also of course the opposite as well. The depressed “paper rejected” tweet. Again, we can all sympathise and you feel a sense of community again.
But the “accepted yay!” tweet doesn’t get your paper read by anyone who doesn’t follow it up with you. So it seems sensible to add a link to the paper, either in the actual journal, or on a preprint server like arXiv.
But when to do it? So let us consider a couple of different scenarios.
Scenario 1: You’re a grad student or postdoc.
It’s seems like overkill to send a series of tweets that are likely to annoy people.
Tweet 1: I’m so excited my paper got accepted!
Tweet 2: ICYMI, my paper is now in the “Just Accepted” list. Link: http://dev/null
Tweet 3: ICYMI, my paper is now in the “Papers In Press” list. Link: http://dev/null
Tweet 4: ICYMI, my paper is now in print! With page numbers and everything! Link: http://dev/null
So which of the above do you find acceptable, and which cross over into oversharing? Would you just hold off tweeting at all and just wait until the paper is online and has a permalink? It takes away some of the spontaneity I guess, so I personally would just do 1 and 3 (but I really don’t like ICYMI tweets). Also your tweet should say something about what your paper is about, space permitting.
Scenario 2: You’re a PI
I’d consider these two tweets a reasonable compromise between oversharing and giving due credit.
Tweet 1: Blurry Sunday AM tweet. Paper accepted! Yes! Win!
Tweet 2: Congratulations to our grad student ******, who had their synthesis paper published by JACS today. Link: http://dev/null/ASAPs
Tweet 3: It’s been a great month in the ME lab. 4 papers in press, and 2 conference presentations. Link, link, link (or link back to PI web page publications list with placeholder anchor)
It might just be me, but PIs tweeting about their H-index, and number of page views etc seems a bit off.
Scenario 3: You’re the Departmental/Institute Social Media person
Tweet 1: New paper from the Sparklybutt Group out now in Nature: http://dev/null. (NOTE: link should either be to the paper itself or a press release if appropriate)
Tweet 2: Sparklybutt Group Nature paper highlighted Here, here, and here! Link, link, link!
Scenario 4: University PR units tweeting “showcased research”
Tweet 1: $Department Sparklybutt Group’s Nature paper has been highlighted here, here, and here! Link, link, link. (NOTE: Press releases should contain links to the paper itself)
All of the above is just my opinion obviously, and is just about Twitter. Using your Groups website or Blog to get more readers is another story entirely. So what do you consider to be too much oversharing of papers, and how much is Goldilocks?