He himself ‘only’ started using it about four years ago. During his fellowship in far-off Australia where Twitter was a useful way of keeping in touch with what colleagues were doing. Linz, a clinical researcher at CARIM (FHML), was converted. These days, he spends at least half an hour a day on the medium, although around the time when there are conferences – for which he regularly reports online as ‘Twitter ambassador’ – this can be considerably more.
For him, the value of this has been proven several times. “Take the virtual conferences during COVID-19. Twitter is then actually the only way to communicate with colleagues. Of course, during sessions there are often chat boxes, but these are often only visible for those who are participating live. Via Twitter, you also see what is happening in other sessions and it is easier to hold and follow discussions with multiple researchers.”
Is a platform where you have to limit yourself to 280 characters per message the best choice when you are discussing complex issues? Linz admits that Twitter is not always ideal. “We point out the limitations in our article. The fact that space is limited, but also that patients and politicians can read it too, and that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a scientific fact and a personal conviction.”
Bad networker
Nevertheless, Linz believes that this does not weigh up against the advantages that the medium offers. “With a tweet, you reach colleagues across the world in a jiffy.” As an example, he mentions the TeleCheck-AF project at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this project, a smartphone app is used to detect cardiac arrhythmia, so that patients did not have to go to the hospital for consultation. “Thanks to Twitter, we had forty participating clinical centres in fourteen European countries within a month, where more than 3,000 patients were treated in this way.”
He also sees it as an opportunity for ‘bad networkers’ at conferences or young researchers. For the latter group, it is often difficult to get in contact with experienced colleagues. “But you can easily network on Twitter. When you put out a question or an idea, you may just get a reaction from a successful researcher in America or Asia. Besides, you meet people who are working on the same subject. Anyone who is not on it, is missing an opportunity of being visible.”
Private life
Still, not everyone is convinced about the platform. In particular, the slightly older colleagues are standoffish, Linz has noticed. “They are often not so skilled in the use of social media. Also, they often associate it with Facebook, where people talk about their private lives. We want to make it clear to them that Twitter is suitable for professional use.”
To do away with another prejudice: tweets are not at the expense of scientific publications. “Twitter is, after all, not peer-reviewed. It is all about the combination: publications to write down reliable results, Twitter to make them visible quickly and widely. Recent analyses have shown that publications promoted on Twitter received more citations. It is not without reason that journals ask more often for authors to share their articles online.”
Essential
Hence the manual that he wrote together with colleagues for Europace. It includes things such as how to create an account, which hashtag you should use, and what is the best time to post a message. “Which, except for a few specific tips, is also handy information for researchers from other fields.”
So, should every scientist become a fervent Twitter user? “There are researchers who seem to be on it full-time. But many use it passively or mainly around the time of congresses. That also has added value, certainly in the field of cardiology, which is big and active and where developments follow each other quickly. Therefore, Twitter is almost essential in order to stay up to date.”