8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Rapid collaborative knowledge building via Twitter after significant geohazard events

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Abstract. Twitter is an established social media platform valued by scholars as an open way to disseminate scientific information and to publicly discuss research results. Scientific discussions on Twitter are viewed by the media, who can then pass on information to the wider public. Social media is used widely by geoscientists, but there is little documentation currently available regarding the benefits or limitations of this for the scientist or the public. Here, we use the example of two 2018 earthquake-related events that were widely commented on by geoscientists on Twitter: the Palu Mw 7.5 earthquake and related tsunami in Indonesia and the long-duration Mayotte island seismovolcanic crisis in the Indian Ocean. We built our study on a content and contextual analysis of selected Twitter threads about the geophysical characteristics of these events. From the analysis of these two examples, we show that Twitter promotes a very rapid building of knowledge in the minutes to hours and days following an event via an efficient exchange of information and active discussion between the scientists themselves and the public. We discuss the advantages and potential pitfalls of this relatively novel way of making scientific information accessible to scholarly peers and lay people. We argue that scientific discussion on Twitter breaks down the traditional “ivory tower” of academia, contributes to the growing trend towards open science, and may help people to understand how science is developed and, in turn, to better understand the risks related to natural/environmental hazards.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The 2016 Central Italy Seismic Sequence: A First Look at the Mainshocks, Aftershocks, and Source Models

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Twitter as a tool for communication and knowledge exchange in academic medicine: A guide for skeptics and novices.

              Twitter is a tool for physicians to increase engagement of learners and the public, share scientific information, crowdsource new ideas, conduct, discuss and challenge emerging research, pursue professional development and continuing medical education, expand networks around specialized topics and provide moral support to colleagues. However, new users or skeptics may well be wary of its potential pitfalls. The aims of this commentary are to discuss the potential advantages of the Twitter platform for dialogue among physicians, to explore the barriers to accurate and high-quality healthcare discourse and, finally, to recommend potential safeguards physicians may employ against these threats in order to participate productively.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Geoscience Communication
                Geosci. Commun.
                Copernicus GmbH
                2569-7110
                2020
                May 15 2020
                : 3
                : 1
                : 129-146
                Article
                10.5194/gc-3-129-2020
                cd1ad2e0-264a-4ea6-8d49-5f90a69f7c3a
                © 2020

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article