The document discusses the challenges of social media for science publishing. It summarizes the perspectives of various science publishers on using social media. While younger scientists may be more open to social media, their incentives do not align well with social media incentives like gaining friends or popularity. The business models of social media, like advertising and profiling users, could conflict with scientific values like privacy and unbiased research. Overall, the document questions whether social media is a good defensive strategy for science publishers or if it introduces more problems than benefits.

1. Do Social and Science Mix?
The antagonist’s perspective

2. Types of Social Media
• Light
– Twitter
– Commenting
– Sharing
• Heavy
– Blogging
– Identity
– Community participation

8. The Lesson of Boundaries
• Personal ads
• Dating sites
– Social dimensions don’t enter professional space
• Four types of boundary regulation:
– Privacy
– Identity
– Utility
– Propriety
• Zuckerberg: “Dumb f*cks.”

9. Supply and Demand
• A simple framework for evaluation
• Sensible test to see if mutual interest and the
proper incentives exist
• Supply = publishers
• Demand = scientists
• Question: Can social media generate revenue?

10. Social Media Man

11. CTSNet
• Message: “Stick to your knitting”
• Source of information – 83% primary
• Appeal to site time, youth, geographic
dispersal
• Publisher feeling “out of touch”
• Users very empirical, practical
• Allows industry groups to form groups
• No mention of revenues

12. Science
• Message: Stewart is “in a [strawberry] jam”
• Social media has cultural challenges
• Fun for staff to do – a part-time hobby
– Creates more work, compensation issues
• Low barriers to entry
• A form of modern SEO
• Facebook events – paid for ads on FB
• No mention of revenues

13. Nature
• Dan: “The healthy alternative?”
• Nothing’s changed – mission of “discussing”
– Or is an engineered, public discussion different?
• Marketing and promotion
– More to do, more time spent by staff
• Work to moderate, expensive
• Intramural content, some lacks novelty
• No mention of revenues

14. Cold Spring Harbor Labs
• David: “Stop with the analogies, get specific.”
• Scholarly publishers have transitioned online
fairly successfully
• Self-promotion and salesmanship
– Pyramid scheme?
• ROI to reach . . . well, Who, exactly?
• Meritocracy vs. egalitarian vs. ideological
• Doing science ≠ talking about science
• No mention of revenues

15. Health Affairs
• Jane: “Blogging gives me a buzz.”
• Authors like to blog, including those who
wouldn’t write for the journal
• New content stream
• Blogging requires funding through a grant
• Expensive to promote
• No mention of revenues

16. Neurosurgery
• Duncan: “I’ll make this extremely quick.”
• Objective: Drive traffic
• Controlling costs by regurgitating content into
blog posts
– Low labor investment
– Allows embedded videos via YouTube
• 99% of social media traffic “of no value”
• No mention of revenues

17. Supply
• Publishing driven by editorial sensibilities
– These require strong social boundaries
– More authority-driven
• Publication begets reputation
– Zero reputation beats a negative reputation
• Publication is still print/article-centric
• Publication is competitive

18. Demand
• Younger scientists are more conservative
– No “revolution among the young”
• Reputation vital to career advancement
• Older scientists are too busy
• Professional socialization best if private
• Scientists are basically introverted
– Social media demands extroversion
• Scientists are competitive

19. Incentives Don’t Match
Science Social
• Citations • Friends
• Reputation • Free spirits
• Privacy • Openness
• Competition • Collaboration
• Authority • Decentralization
• Introversion • Extroversion

20. Business Model Problems
Social Media Science
• Advertising • Advertising conflicts?
– Targeting – Targeting - privacy
– Profiling – Profiling - privacy
– Selling – Selling - propriety
• Content • Content integrity?
– Syndication – Syndication
– Intake • Qualified audience?
– Intake
• Relevant content?

21. Is Social Media Defensive?
• Comparable to SEO – price of admission
• Is it done in fear of irrelevance?
• Is it an effective defense?
• Can science publishers execute such a defense
well enough to withstand a real siege?
• Why isn’t it done as offense?

22. Is Social Media Defensible?
• Investment in social media
– Opportunity costs?
• Challenges in scholarly publication
– Too much junk
– Race to the bottom
– Too egalitarian

23. Conclusion
• Social media works outside the professional
sphere
• Science and social incentives don’t match
• Revenue-generating or new cost of doing
business?
• Can editorial/authority operations do it?

24. Be Careful How You Spend . . .