Using Twitter to communicate conservation science from a professional conference

Conservation Biology

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 216-225

  Bombaci, Sara P ^a   Farr, Cooper M ^a   Gallo, H Travis ^a   Mangan, Anna M ^a   Stinson, Lani T ^a   Kaushik, Monica ^b   Pejchar, Liba ^a  

^a Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^b WILDLIFE INSTITUTE OF INDIA   (India)

Author keywords

ICCB 2013; Live tweeting; Science communication; Scientific societies; Social media; Society for Conservation Biology

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION NETWORK; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION; POLICY MAKING; RESEARCH WORK; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; SOCIAL MEDIA;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; ORGANIZATION; SOCIAL MEDIA;

COMMUNICATION; CONGRESSES AS TOPIC; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; SOCIAL MEDIA;

EID: 84954234249     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12570     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA, Ladwig P. 2014. The "nasty effect": online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19:373-387.
2. Aosaki Y, Sugihara T, Umemoto K. 2010. Examining the trend toward a service economy in information media through changes to technology: Influence of Twitter on media companies. Proceedings of Technology Management for Global Economic Growth (PICMET '10) 1-5.
3. Baruch Y, Holtom BC. 2008. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations 61:1139-1160.
4. Brossard D. 2013. New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:14096-14101.
5. Cigliano J. 2013. Sequester costs scientists and SCB. Society for Conservation Biology, Washington, D.C. Available from http://conbio.org/publications/scb-news-blog/sequester-costs-scientists-and-scb (accessed May 2015).
6. Darling ES, Shiffman D, Cote IM, Drew JA. 2013. The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific presentation. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 6:32-43.
7. Duggan M, Smith A. 2013. Social media update 2013. Pew Research Center, Pew Research Internet Project.
8. Ferguson C, Inglis SC, Newton PJ, Cripps PJS, Macdonald PS, Davidson PM. 2014. Social media: a tool to spread information: a case study analysis of Twitter conversation at the Cardiac Society of Australia & New Zealand 61st annual scientific meeting 2013. Collegian 21:89-93.
9. Hall N. 2014. The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists. Genome Biology 15:424-426.
10. National Science Board. 2012. Science and technology: public attitudes and understanding. Science and engineering indicators 2012. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA.
11. Parsons E, Shiffman D, Darling E, Spillman N, Wright A. 2014. How Twitter literacy can benefit conservation scientists. Conservation Biology 28:299-301.
12. Shiffman D. 2012. Twitter as a tool for conservation education and outreach: what scientific conferences can do to promote live-tweeting. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 2:257-262.
13. Twitter, Inc. 2014. About Twitter, Inc. Available from https://about.twitter.com/company (accessed March 2015).
14. Van Eperen L, Marincola FM. 2011. How scientists use social media to communicate their research. Journal of Translational Medicine 9: doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-9-199.
15. Winkless L. 2013. Science and the #hashtag. Materials Today 16:2-3.
16. You J. 2014. Who are the science stars of Twitter? Science 345:1440-1441.