Reflections and a simple round-up of Peer Review Week 2016

It has been Peer Review Week this week: I’ve been watching the hashtag on Twitter with interest (and linked to it in a blogpost for piirus.ac.uk) and on Monday I attended a webinar called “Recognising Review – New and Future Approaches or acknowledging the Peer Review Process”.

I do like webinars, as I’ve blogged before: professional development/horizon scanning from my very own desktop! This week’s one featured talks from Paperhive and Publons, amongst others, both of which have been explored on this blog in the past. I was particularly interested to hear that Publons are interested in recording not only peer review effort, but also editorial contributions. (Right at the end of the week this year, there have been suggestions that editorial work be the focus of next year’s peer review week so it seems to me that we’ve come full circle.) A question from the audience raised the prospect of a new researcher metric based on peer review tracking. I guess that’s an interesting space to watch!

I wondered where Peer Review Week came from: it seems to be a publisher initiative if Twitter is anything to go by: the hashtag is dominated by their contributions. On Twitter at least, it attracted some publisher criticism: if you deliberately look at ways to recognise peer review then some academics are going to ask whether it is right for publishers to profit so hugely from their free work. Some criticisms were painful to read and some were also highly amusing:

There were plenty of link to useful videos, webpages and infographics about how to carry out peer review, both for those new to it and for those already experienced, such as:

(On this topic, I thought that an infographic from Elsevier about reasons why reviewers refused to peer review was intriguing.)

Advice was also offered on how / how not to respond to peer reviews. My favourite:

And there were glimpses of what happens at the publisher or editor level:

There wasn’t much discussion of the issue of open vs blind or double blind peer review, which I found interesting because recognition implies openness, at least to me. And there was some interesting research reported on in the THE earlier this month, about eliminating gender bias through double blind reviews, so openness in the context of peer review is an issue that I feel torn about. Discussion on Twitter seemed to focus mostly on incentives for peer review, and I suppose recognition facilitates that too.

Peer Review Week has also seen one of the juiciest stories in scholarly communication: fake peer reviews! We’ve been able to identify so much dodgy practice in the digital age, from fake papers and fake authors to fake email addresses so that you can be your own peer reviewer and citation rings. Some of this is, on one level, highly amusing: papers by Maggie Simpson, or a co-author who is, in fact your cat. But on another level it is also deeply concerning, and so it’s a space that will continue to fascinate me because it definitely looks like a broken system: how do we stick it all together?

Publish then publicise & monitor. Publication is not the end of the process!

Once your journal article or research output has been accepted and published, there are lots of things that you can do to spread the word about it. This blogpost has my own list of the top four ways you could do this (other than putting it on your CV, of course). I also recommend any biologists or visual thinkers to look at:
Lobet, Guillaume (2014): Science Valorisation. figsharehttp://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1057995
Lobet describes the process as “publish: identify yourself: communicate”, and points out useful tools along the way, including recommending that authors identify themselves in ORCID, ResearchGate, Academia.edu, ImpactStory and LinkedIn. (Such services can create a kind of online, public CV and my favourite for researchers is ORCID.) You may also find that your publisher offers advice on ways to publicise your paper further.

PUBLICISE

1) Talk about it! Share your findings formally at a conference. Mention it in conversations with your peers. Include it in your teaching.

2) Tweet about it! If you’re not on Twitter yourself (or even if you are!) then you could ask a colleague to tweet about it for you. A co-author or the journal editor or publisher might tweet about it, or you could approach a University press officer. If you tweet yourself then you could pin the tweet about your latest paper to your profile on Twitter.

3) Open it up! Add your paper to at least one Open Access repository, such as your institutional repository (they might also tweet about it). This way your paper will be available even to those who don’t subsribe to the journal. You can find an OA repository on ROAR or OpenDOAR. Each repository will have its own community of visitors and ways in which to help people discover your content, so you might choose more than one repository: perhaps one for your paper and one for data or other material associated with it. If you put an object into Figshare, for example, it will be assigned a DOI and that will be really handy for getting Altmetrics measures.

4)Be social! Twitter is one way to do this already, of course. but you could also blog about it, on your own blog or perhaps as a guest post for an existing blog with a large audience already. You could put visual content like slides and infographics into Slideshare, and send out an update via LinkedIn. Choose at least one more social media channel of your choice, for each paper.

MONITOR

  1. Watch download stats for your paper, on your publisher’s website. Measuring the success of casual mentions is difficult, but you can often see a spike in download statistics for a paper, after it has been mentioned at a conference.
  2. Watch Twitter analytics: is your tweet about your paper one of your Top Tweets? You can see how many “engagements” a tweet has, i.e., how many clicks, favourites, re-tweets and replies, etc it accrued. If you use a link shortening service, you should also be able to see how many clicks there have been on your link, and where from. (bit.ly is one of many such shortening services.) This is the measure that I value most. If no-one is clicking to look at your content, then perhaps Twitter is not working for you and you could investigate why not or focus on more efficient channels.
  3. Repositories will often offer you stats about downloads, just like your publisher, and either or both may offer you access to an altmetrics tool. Take a look at these to see more information behind the numbers: who is interested and engaged with your work and how can you use this knowledge? Perhaps it will help you to choose which of the other possible social media channels you might use, as this is where there are others in your discipline who are already engaged with your work.

 

Ultimately, you might be interested in citations rather than engagements on Twitter or even webpage visits or downloads for your paper. It’s hard to draw a definite connection between such online activity and citations for journal papers, but I’m pretty sure that no-one is going to cite your paper if they don’t even know it exists, so if this is important to you, then I would say, shout loud!

Ensuring quality and annotating scientific publications. A summary of a Twitter chat

Screenshot of twitter conversation
Tweet tweet!

Last year (yes, I’m slow to blog!), I had a very productive conversation (or couple of conversations) on Twitter with a former colleague & scientist at the University of Warwick, Andrew Marsh, which are worth documenting here as a way to give them a narrative, and to illustrate how Twitter sometimes works.

Back in November 2015, Andrew tweeted to ask who would sign reviews of manuscripts, when reporting on a presentation by Chief Editor of Nature Chemistry,  Stuart Cantrill. I replied on Twitter by asking whether such openness would make the reviewers take more time over their reviews (thereby slowing peer review down). I wondered whether openness would make reviewers less direct and so therefore possibly less helpful as more open to interpretation. Also, whether such open criticisim would drive authors to engage in even more “pre-submission”, informal peer reviewing.

Andrew tells me that, at the original event “a show of hands and brief discussion in the room revealed that PIs or those who peer reviewed manuscripts regularly, declared themselves happy to reveal their identity whereas PhD students or less experienced researchers felt either unsure or uncomfortable in doing so.”

Our next chat was kick-started when Andrew pointed me to a news article from Nature that highlighted a new tool for annotating web pages, Hypothes.is. In our Twitter chat that ensued we considered:

  1. Are such annotations a kind of post-publication peer review? I think that they can work alongside traditional peer review, but as Andrew pointed out, they lack structure so they’re certainly no substitute.
  2. Attribution of such comments is important so that readers would know whose comments they are reading, and also possibly enable tracking of such activity, so that the work could be measured. Integration with ORCID would be a good way to attribute comments. (This is already planned, it seems: Dan Whaley picked up on our chat here!)
  3. Andrew wondered whether tracking of such comments could be done for altmetrics. Altmetric.com responded. Comments on Hypothes.is could signal scholarly attention for the work which they comment on, or indeed attract attention themselves. It takes a certain body of work before measuring comments from such a source becomes valuable, but does measuring itself incentivise researchers to comment? I’m really interested in the latter point: motivation cropped up in an earlier blogpost of mine on peer review. I suspect that researchers will say that measurement does not affect them, but I’m also sure that some of those are well aware of, eg their ResearchGate score!
  4. Such a tool offers a function similar to marginalia and scrawls in library books. Some are helpful shortcuts (left by altruists, or just those who wanted to help their future selves?!), some are rubbish (amusing at their best), and sometimes you recognise the handwriting of an individual who makes useful comments, hence the importance of attribution.
  5. There are also some similarities with social bookmarking and other collaboration tools online, where you can also publish reviews or leave comments on documents and publications.

And who thought that you couldn’t have meaningful conversations on Twitter?! You can also read responses on Twitter to eLife‘s tweet about its piece on the need for open peer review.

The best part of this conversation between Andrew and me on Twitter was the ability to bring in others, by incorporating their Twitter handles. We also picked up on what others were saying, like this tweet about journal citation distributions from Stephen Curry. The worst parts were trying to be succinct when making a point (and wanting to develop some points); feeling a need to collate the many points raised and forgetting to flag people sometimes.

Just as well you can also blog about these things, then!

 

I also write for Piirus: a selection of my recent blogposts for them

As a freelancer, one of my clients is Piirus: they match researchers together so that they can work collaboratively, and I am their social media manager. Consequently, I’m writing a lot over on the Piirus blog! Lately, I’ve been participating in the Thesis Whisperer’s Massive Open Online Course (MOOC), called “How to Survive Your PhD“, and if you want to know what I’ve been finding out on that course then please do take a look at my latest blogpost for Piirus.

I also share a lot of my tips on using Twitter on the Piirus blog, including a kind of mini series lately on the hashtags that may interest anyone supporting researchers, or indeed researchers themselves. In other topics that I’ve blogged about for Piirus, I looked recently at motivations for digitisation and I shared tips for researchers considering crowdsourcing projects. If you’re interested in following my writing over on the Piirus blog then please do take a look. Although I will keep writing here too, of course!

Thanking for re-tweets: efficient, friendly & worth a try

Twitter is really social media and not just a broadcast & info consumption channel. Sometimes though, it’s hard to find time to invest in being more social. Saying thanks for a re-tweet is something I’ve already blogged about, but I’ve never felt that I’ve got entirely the right approach. What happens when I’m on holiday, or ill, or just too occupied with other things?

Recently I saw a thank you to me, and I noticed that it was from a service that auto-tweets, but I still thought it sounded nice so I investigated. In general, I don’t value auto-tweets, and I don’t want to automatically, meaninglessly thank folks for everything, but I really like what Sumall do. Here is an example of a tweet that they sent out on my behalf:

My best RTs this week came from: @aleebrahim @SciPubLab @ilk21 #thankSAll Who were yours? http://sumall.com/thankyou 

This was favourited and re-tweeted by one of the recipients, so I’m not alone in liking the way these tweets are written!

Be sure to investigate the settings if you use Sumall. You might want to unsubscribe from the daily email reports if you’re not a social media pro. You can also edit your Twitter preferences and tell it not to bother bragging about your Twitter performance every week/month. And you can perhaps use it to investigate some stats so that you know which are your high-hitting tweets, so that you can strategically brag to your own managers!

 

Digital tools for research #ECRchat yesterday on Twitter

I took part in this online twitter chat yesterday, which discussed tools that researchers might find useful. There is a storify summary:

[View the story “Digital tools: ECRchat 23 April 2015” on Storify]

It was interesting to see how the chat built up, and people got more involved at the end of the hour, rather than at the beginning!

There have been quite a few useful ECRchats, and it’s one of the more active twitter hashtags that I follow, along with #phdchat, #openaccess #altmetrics and #peerreview

Tools for measuring my blogging activity: what can I learn? Am I achieving “impact”?

I’m interested in tools that measure/monitor social media activity, partly because they can potentially be used by the authors of such activity (ie I can learn something useful for myself!) but partly also because of the prevailing wind of performance measurement by numbers. What do the numbers tell me?

I’ve previously looked at Twitter & tools for measuring that. But now I’m looking at my blog, and I’m starting with what WordPress can tell me about it, what I think is worth measuring and how it can direct my future social media activity. You can get a flavour of my discoveries by just reading the stuff in bold!

German measuring stick: somewhat easier to handle than English retracting metal tapes!
German measuring stick: somewhat easier to handle than English retracting metal tapes!

Number of views

The WordPress dashboard features a graph of recent activity, but also a “Site stats” link on the left-hand menu. Clicking on this presents me with a nice clear blue bar-chart with a snapshot recent view numbers, on a daily basis. I’m much more interested in the monthly view: this is where I can check trends and see how consistently my blog is doing. In general, because there is more content over time, I should be accruing more views over time. I ask myself, what if it doesn’t? Would I stop blogging? Yes. Am I happy with the number of views I have, and the growth rate? Well, I don’t know what to compare it to, but perhaps I could compare it to my most viewed month.

I can look on the bar charts for anomalies and WordPress also tells me my “best ever” day, in terms of views, which has clearly influenced one particular month. Such a spike seems worth investigating: why did my blog suddenly accrue more views on that day? I think I know why: it was a great blog post title and it accrued a lot of Twitter activity in terms of re-tweeting, including by influencers on Twitter. This was partly because I was blogging about a presentation by one of those influencers, and also because I made a point of tweeting at him to tell him, so that he re-tweeted! This sort of context could tell me how to accrue more views in future.

I’m also aware though, that views can be anything from a long sit-down and read with a cup of tea, to a glance and click away…

Referrers to my blog

Below the graph and headline numbers, I can see referrers to my blog: I clicked on “summaries” to investigate these, and once again I can choose the time period to view. I chose “all time” and I would estimate from the numbers that nearly 50% of views come from search engines (I looked into this and the vast majority of these were from Google), and about another 40% come from Twitter. Another significant referrer is my old blog, and I can see the URL of an event I presented at, too. I got 4 views each from comments I made on influencers blogs. These stats tell me less about the success of my blog, and more about the influence of my other activities.

Given how many blog views come from Twitter, it seems to me to be worthwhile continuing my presence in Twitter. I’m sure that I could build on Twitter’s effectiveness in driving traffic to my blog, by more direct tweeting at influencers. However, I’m not only seeking views of my blog as pure numbers!

I’m particularly pleased to see the number of views from the event I spoke at, because I know the audience from that event: these are people who I know I want to reach! So I can consider further speaking engagements as a wise investment of my time, in terms of driving traffic to my blog (especially if, as with that event, it is widely publicised and links are made to my blog and/or online profile).

What the stats don’t tell me is why people followed the link and what they thought when they did: is my blog reflecting well on me? I think so, because after that event I had a number of enquiries, but I don’t know for sure. All I know is that the event was effective as a way of raising my online profile.

Commenting on influencers’ blogs is considerably less effort than speaking at an event, and could also extend my reach to those with shared interests. What if I were to try writing less on my blog, but commenting more on others’ blogs, as a part of my mini-strategy? In this way, I could get more views for content already written, but would people lose interest in my blog if I post less often? This is perhaps worth trying!

Search terms

For me, this was a fairly disappointing area, because although I can see that lots of views come through search engines, most of the search terms are apparently “unknown”. And indeed, glancing through those that are known, many of them involve a search for my name or my blog name. I can take from this that my blog name is worth hanging on to!

Shares

This is interesting, because it suggests a level of engagement with my blog that goes beyond viewing it: presumably those who share it have at least scanned through the content! Their sharing might also bring more views.  My most shared posts appear to be the ones that I consider to be most academic. Looking at the service that was used to share my post is also quite telling: Facebook is significant, with twice as many shares as Twitter, and I’m not a big user of Facebook. Perhaps I should be? I could investigate whether being active on Facebook makes a difference! But I confess: I’m not sure I have time to do that in the near future.

Followers & Comments 

I can also see numbers of these on the main Site stats page, and I know that commenting isn’t a big deal on my blog. Perhaps it would be if I commented more on others’ blogs? Looking at top commenters is also not especially useful to me, since there aren’t so many, although I like that I can see at a glance if I am following the commenters’ own blogs. This is a space to watch if I do choose to comment more.

Clicks

The summaries of these interest me, because a click also seems to be an interaction level deeper than a mere view. What are my blog readers clicking on? This might signify what they are interested in, and thus indicate what I could blog about in future. Lots of people have clicked on the link to my LinkedIn profile, which supports what I found in the search terms. There are clicks to Twitter: to a picture tweet of my leaving cake from Warwick. I already know that some of my blog readers are former colleagues! This makes me think though, are picture tweets more effective at attracting attention? Not one I can investigate in the near future, but definitely food for thought.

The clicks also reflect what I blog about, because there are lots of clicks to the site where my book chapter can be found, and to the BBK series at Humboldt Uni, since I have blogged about some of their seminars.

Reflecting on my goals, on impact and other sources beyond WordPress

My goal when blogging is partly to raise my profile, so that potential employers and customers know who I am and what expertise I have. Beyond that, others might be interested to read what I have learnt or benefit from my experiences, and I’m happy to share. I know I’m successful in that when I meet people who have either read my blog, or know of its existence, they tell me so. I don’t get so many comments on my blog but I do get them in person. Perhaps I could gather such anecdotes if I were going to report on my blogging activity to others.

In judging my own success at this, I ought to reflect on how much time I spend on my blog, and consider the return on my investment, in comparison with other profile-raising activities. That’s why I’ve started using some time management tools, so that I can add that dimension into my reflections.

What if I was explicitly trying to achieve “impact” through my blog? I would like to simplify “impact” into three varieties:

  1. A highly significant interaction with a small number of people
  2. Bringing information to a target audience, who engage with it in a moderately significant way
  3. Outreach to a wide-ranging, various and large population

Perhaps the first two varieties belong together, since they are essentially about things that are measured in a more qualitative way. WordPress’ stats report gives me clues about where to look for more qualitative information.

What is “highly significant” about an interaction will of course be open to interpretation and vary widely from one field to another, but I feel it’s beyond the scope of my blog. It is perhaps something that I could achieve through the sum total of my activity over a long period of time, or indeed through interactions with an individual.

What I mean by “moderately significant” is that the information given is actually read and interpreted or used by others, in some way. Perhaps my blog content gets re-purposed into some other librarian’s guide for students, or it at least prompts such a guide to be written. The only way I’d know about this is if someone were to tell me, or possibly if they linked back to my blog and people clicked on that link, and I watched referrals. In the meantime, I know that I re-purpose my content myself, so that’s a good start!

Which brings me to the “Outreach” notion, which is what I think most of these stats really indicate. It as a possible foundation for my second flavour of impact, and in any case, my profile does have a significant impact on my own life and career! What the WordPress stats do for me is they indicate the success of my blogging in achieving outreach, and they pointout where I should look for qualitative clues about deeper impact.

 

 

What is a re-blog?

I’ve been blogging for  years, but this is a feature of WordPress that wasn’t available on Warwick Uni’s own blogging platform. I like it as a way of engaging with other bloggers whose content I like (like re-tweeting and blog commenting all rolled into one!), plus it’s a way of providing content to anyone following my blog, when I find something of interest from somewhere else and don’t have time to write a lot myself.

It feels a bit like cheating, to me, because of the lack of effort, but if someone re-blogged my content with proper attribution (which WordPress does) and a friendly introductory comment, then I’d be happy. I note that in order to read the full post that I’ve re-blogged, you have to visit the source blog in any case, so it ought to drive traffic to the blogs of people who I’ve re-blogged.

I noticed that my re-blogged content did not appear on my LinkedIn updates (Aside: Who sees what in my Linkedin updates is increasingly a mystery to me!), even though my fresh blog content does seem appear there. But a re-blogged post does get tweeted and it appears to anyone subscribing to my blog through WordPress, of course.

Note to self: think about tweet appearance when commenting as I re-blog!

The elements displayed in that tweet are:

Title of blog post: my twitter handle: beginning of my comment: shortened link

All in all, a re-blog is a simple way to engage with social media.

Use Twitter well, as a researcher, and report on your success

Here are two examples I’ve come across:

1. Tweet directly

I heard a great story from a researcher who tweeted event information directly at 72 of her contacts, and then they re-tweeted her message to a potential audience of around 50,000.

Note that she used Twitter to direct-message people who could help her to promote her work. The “potential audience” of 50,000 were all the followers of the people who tweeted or re-tweeted about her work. I really like this story, as a way to impress line managers with your effective use of social media. It’s simple, it’s got numbers (line managers like those!) and it demonstrates that you go beyond just tweeting into the void at whoever is following you. It’s using your network contacts properly!

2. Monitor your twitter high-hitters & report on media attention

I also noticed that the JISC headlines which land in my inbox feature a section for “Our media coverage” and a section on “Our social media activity”. It’s a very nice example of an e-mail newsletter altogether, but the “Our social media activity” section attracted my attention, because of the way it presents tweets. They look something like this:

 

Retweeted by 94 people with a potential reach of 84.7k
‘Forget 24-hour drinking; students want 24-hour libraries’ http://bbc.in/1knWz0M (via @BBCNews) pic.twitter.com/qnXLEJvnCT

 

(from JISC’s May 2014 headlines)

I like this because these measures are easy to find in Twitter analytics, so that any researcher can see his/her tweets with the widest reach. JISC presumably tell folks this in their newsletter because there may be others who also find them interesting, and they are using Twitter as a filter & highlighter for you.

By monitoring your own high-hitting tweets in this way you will soon learn what your audience is interested in re-tweeting. Have you got the right audience? (If not, start following people who you would like to have follow you!) Can you tailor your message to attract their attention? (If indeed, attention is one of your goals on Twitter.)

You could also look out for “faves” and replies on Twitter, but I note that JISC is not doing so in this context.

Such a record of high-hitting tweets & of media attention might be something of interest to other team members, to line managers & possibly even research project funders if it’s part of your impact strategy to reach a broad audience.

Of course, I follow a lot of twitterers and only see a fraction of what they tweet so I know that the “potential reach” is just that, and the actual reach is likely to be considerably lower. Still, with a wider potential reach, you ought to have a wider actual reach, and those who have re-tweeted have considered your tweet to some degree. Although it is very easy to re-tweet without investigating, so I still wouldn’t claim too much without more context.

How do you get more context?

In the story of the researcher with her direct message tweets, these were about an event. So she will have a lot more information about the success of that event, I imagine.

The number of hits on the link(s) in your tweets could also indicate a more participative Twitter audience, but if it’s your website you’re promoting, then I’d rather look at the number of visitors to that site in total, as a success story to report to line managers (bigger numbers!). You could check how many visitors came there via Twitter, to see if your efforts on Twitter are paying off, but just those who click on the links you tweeted will be a smaller number than that figure, since people might also “MT” or “via” your tweet with their own shortcut links.

A journal article that you’re promoting will have altmetrics: if your publisher doesn’t collate these, your institutional repository might, or you can use ORCID and ImpactStory to do it yourself.

You could possibly do some kind of calculation that for x tweets in the course of a year, your ROI (return on investment) has been x visitors from twitter to your website/blog/article(s), although this is less simple, and it’s the simplicity of these examples that I like.

Looking good on social media

A great tool for this is Rebelmouse which picks up on my tweets. It prompted me to consider how to include more pictures into my blog posts, recently. And now it has got me thinking about how a researcher can “look good” on social media.

I blogged recently about what might incentivise a researcher to upload published outputs online, and one of the criteria was that their research should “look good”. I also blogged recently about my mini-strategy for social media  where I state as my first goal that I want a “professional-looking” profile. So really, it boils down to the question: What do I mean by “looking good”? And what does this mean to a researcher? Here are some answers along with my tips!

Great content

This is a top priority, to use social media to say stuff that I believe is meaningful and valuable, and sometimes to be a little original, at least within the community/network I belong to. I also try to write in a way that is accessible and friendly but not too informal. My pictures are… well, secondary.

For researchers, others might create content about your work, and being present in social media enables you to engage with them to build more great content. (This is where Altmetrics becomes of interest as you can use altmetrics tools to see what others are saying about your papers.)

Other people’s work provides a content source: you can review at great length or simply re-tweet, re-blog or collate others’ content. I think people who only re-tweet are essentially curating content for themselves whilst at the same time having a social media presence: it isn’t original work, but the collating and reporting role is pretty useful to us all. Twitter is great at the reporting role & reaching people, but not so great at curating, in my opinion. Read more about curation tools in a forthcoming blog post!

Academic (and authentic)

I’m not an academic, so this isn’t my own concern but rather one that I think researchers will need to display. Having said that, I do want to show a certain level of thoughtfulness and appreciation for academic ways. The LSE blog has some great advice for researchers on using social media as an academic. The concept of social media and its suitability for “academicness” is a really big topic so I won’t try to explore it all here!

Instead of wanting to sound academic, I want to sound experienced and well-informed but also authentic, reflective and exploratory. 

Active

This is a balancing act of choosing what to share and how, and not opening too many commitments for yourself! I’m active in the channels that matter to me, but I need to make it clear to anyone who stumbles across any out-of-date profile of mine, where I am actually active. My mini-strategy describes what I’m aiming to achieve in terms of activity levels with my blog, Twitter & LinkedIn and I’ve recently updated profiles on other sites to point out that I am active on those sites.

The tool I regularly use to curate content for myself these days is Evernote. And I haven’t yet chosen to share information about that activity, socially. I suppose that I’m active enough “out there”. I don’t want to flood other people’s feeds and annoy them! But if I wasn’t active in other ways, then sharing my curation activity would be a good time-saver.

Visually attractive

I choose profile photographs carefully! I want to look  reasonably professional and competent, but also to display a little personality and approachable-ness. I also try not to change the photos too often, but to keep them up-to-date, so that folks can recognise me. I’m not using my photo as a kind of “brand”: I like that when LinkedIn displays my WordPress profile it is with a different picture of me, so that maybe piques interest in the new source but still provides recognisable-ness for those who meet me.

Twitter and WordPress also allow me to use images on my home page/wrapper for my social media activity, and indeed in my content, along with formatting options for blog posts on WordPress. There’s a lot more that I could do on this front, so I’m really pleased that Rebelmouse provides a visually attractive view of my content with very little effort from me. Even though it’s just the same content as you would find on Twitter, I think it looks nice so perhaps I should promote it more… like mentioning it here 😉

Responsive

This is more important to me than “social”. I have been thinking quite a bit about whether I should tweet thanks for people who re-tweet my content, and how to respond socially online. I don’t think I’ve got the perfect protocol but as a minimum, I do aim to respond to anyone who tweets directly at me, either publicly or privately, and indeed to any comments on my blog. Ideally, I would also do this in a very timely fashion, but this is subjective and I’m often busy so I’m also a fan of “better late than never”! Also, I’m aware that some tweets at me are really more of a courtesy, an attribution or a citation, and so they don’t require a response except maybe a private thank you.

Thought-through & Linked-up

So I’ve got a blog and a twitter feed and I use LinkedIn and I have an ORCID and presence in Rebelmouse, on Slideshare and all sorts of other profiles besides. How do these all link up to each other and relate to each other? How can I make it easy and efficient for the person who wants to find out about me, to navigate through all of these profiles? I keep mentioning that I only update LinkedIn and that I’m active on Twitter & WordPress, so I don’t need to feel guilty every time Academia.edu tell me that another person has discovered my profile through a Google search. I’ve laid a trail! I’ve a feeling that ORCID is going to be the answer… at least, in the academic setting.

Popular

Tricky, this one… I mean, how do I look popular and why would I want to?! If I know that I’m creating good content, so why do I need the validation of popularity? But the opinion of one’s peers matters, and for researchers the attention from the wider community is an indicator of where to look for impact.

I do make it clear which measures of my social media activity I want to measure, in my mini strategy and this is a space I’m still watching. Basically, I’m interested in what measures are available for and from the tools/channels that I actively use, and whether they mean anything to me depends on what I’m trying to achieve.

How do I use this information to look popular? I don’t, but I see that LinkedIn, ResearchGate and other such sites are publishing attention numbers for me. Since a lot of the measures are new and people don’t fully understand or trust them, this is not a big deal at the moment because I don’t think folks are looking, but it might be in future. Depending on who is looking and whether or not one cares!

I expect that there are lots more aspects to “looking good on social media” that I could consider, but that’s my round-up for now!