I’ve written often about how important it is to gauge, not just the scholarly impact of behavior analysis, but also its dissemination impact, a broad term that encompasses many possible ways that our discipline is getting noticed outside of scholarly circles. Dissemination impact is a close cousin of the more familiar social validity assessment, which considers not what behavior analysis is good at but rather what people who aren’t us say about it. Yet social validity assessment operates on a small scale and (only the participants of a given study, who directly experienced some procedure). Dissemination impact asks about attention from across many swaths of society, attention that arises when people become aware of our science and practice, even if they don’t experience those directly.
In posts like those listed below I showed you data on what in behavior analysis is getting noticed where (the news, social media, public policy documents, etc.).
- 2022’s Greatest Hits of Dissemination Impact: Insights from the Most-Noticed Articles in Behavior Analysis
- 2022’s Greatest Hits of Dissemination Impact: Behavior Analysis in the News
- Greatest Hits of Dissemination Impact: 2022 Behavior Analysis Articles in Social Media
Here, for those interested in understanding how their work is noticed, is a quick update on the dynamics affecting one domain of dissemination impact. When discussing social media, my other posts have focused mostly on the Platform Formerly Known As Twitter (i.e., X), because at the time the vast majority of social media posts mentioning scholarly work appeared on that platform. But long story short, Twitter/X has experienced some turbulent times, which has cost it in terms of both reputation and subscribers.
Many former Twitter/X users have gravitated to the Bluesky platform as a substitute, and in the Fall of 2024 Altmetric.com began tracking Bluesky posts in its evaluation of social-media dissemination impact. In a recent blog post, Altmetric detailed just how much dissemination impact oxygen Bluesky has begun consuming. Here are Altmetric’s data on the overall percentage of posts, referencing journal articles in all fields, that appeared in X and Bluesky over the past few months. Notice the generally increasing trend for Bluesky, which now produces roughly half of the posts mentioning recently-published research (bottom panel).
I emphasized the bottom panel because Altmetric reports emerging differences in how Bluesky and X get used to talk about journal articles. One difference, as implied above, is that Bluesky is relatively more likely to mention recently-released research. Another difference:
Although X engagement with new publications is still strong and of quality, there’s a large body of “reposting” activity that seems largely focussed on a certain body of work: vaccine scepticism, MMR, autism, ivermectin, etc.
So Bluesky users seem more likely to post about reputable research. They are also about 56% more likely to create a unique post mentioning research (vs. simply re-posting someone else’s comments). And perhaps Bluesky users post about different research topics than X users, though Altmetric hasn’t yet provided firm data.
What all of this says is that if you’re curious about dissemination impact, Bluesky now matters in two key ways. First, you need to know what’s being said on Bluesky about research you care about. Second, authors can boost their dissemination impact by actively participating in social media, including by posting about their own stuff (for some tips, see the Postscript).
Regarding the former, here’s a snapshot of Bluesky vs. X posts referencing several behavior analysis journals during recent months. Overall, Bluesky and X are neck and neck, and for some journals Bluesky was the higher-volume platform.
| Journal | total posts | bluesky | X |
|---|---|---|---|
| BAP | 102 | 38 | 64 |
| JABA | 95 | 58 | 37 |
| POBS | 87 | 50 | 37 |
| BI | 50 | 24 | 26 |
| JCBS | 48 | 16 | 32 |
| BSI | 36 | 29 | 7 |
| JEAB | 23 | 6 | 17 |
| JPBI | 17 | 0 | 17 |
| JOBE | 13 | 2 | 11 |
| TPR | 10 | 2 | 8 |
| BM | 5 | 2 | 3 |
| ETC | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| JOBM | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 5 others | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | — | 50.8% | 49.2% |
Probably also worth pointing out:
- None of the totals shown above are especially inspiring. Some research garners thousands of social media posts in the first weeks and months after its publication (this one, for instance, was the focus of almost 3000 posts during the same time frame). We can and should do better.
- Not all attention is good attention. Duh. To fully understand your dissemination impact, you have to go beyond counting posts to see what’s actually being said.
Postscript: Some Social Media Tips for Scientists
Here, adapted from a previous post, are a few tips for recruiting social media attention for your research, but this is just kindling: Keep in mind there are plenty of resources available online (like here and here and here) that get into the specifics much more deeply than I will.
- Get social media accounts (duh). In the past I’ve emphasized X because it was the epicenter of attention for journal articles, but as noted Bluesky is rapidly on the rise, and in any case each platform has its own users, so more platforms means more potential sets of eyes. There are, to be sure, social media platforms that specifically target researchers (like ResearchGate), but these less likely to reach the general public.
- Build up a network of followers who can help to spread your message. The most common way a message circulates is when others re-tweet it (basically, forward it to others). Therefore, the more people who are guaranteed to see your original message the better. Online you’ll find lot of tips for how businesses can accumulate social media followers, but some of the same principles apply to individuals.
- Decide what’s worth posting about. If your research addresses theoretical questions using laboratory methods and complex quantitative models, there’s probably not much of a pre-made audience for this. Many of the same features that make research interesting to news outlets also can attract attention on social media, for instance if the research…
- Addresses issues that affect large segments of the population
- Is relevant to issues already being discussed in the news or on social media
- Focuses on social justice issues
- Produced surprising or unexpected findings
- Is likely to intersect with the focus of special-interest groups with a big social media presence
- Say it with panache. Social media posts can’t sound like one researcher talking to another. They need to be direct, clear, and understandable by the wide spectrum of individuals who use social media. They need to get right to the “So what?” (see #3 above). Usually brevity matters. Adding an easy to understand graphic (hint: single-subject graphs probably don’t count here) can make your post more noticeable.
- Consider common tips for getting attention for your social media posts, but as suggested above be aware that some of these probably don’t align with your values as a researcher.
- Provide a link to the full article for those who might want details. Yes, social media attention really increases visits to the full text.
- Many posters make for light work. If you have co-authors, post separately, because you’ll likely have different followers. If your journal’s owner or publisher engages with social media, make sure they post as well, for the same reason.
- Be prepared for an intermittent reinforcement schedule. Most non-research-focused social media posts don’t go viral, so you won’t hit a home run every time when you post about research. The more you post, of course, the more that consequences (amount of attention) will shape your repertoire.