OPINION PAPER

Social Networking and Scientific Communication:A Paradoxical Return to Mertonian Roots?

Niamh M. Hogan and Karl J. SweeneyDiscipline of Surgery, Clinical Science Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. E-mail:{niamhogan, karljsweeney}@gmail.com

Although modes of interaction between the two continueto evolve, society and science are inextricably linked.Preserving the integrity of science, and by extensionsociety, in the era of Twitter and Facebook represents asignificant challenge. The concept of open communica-tion in science is not a new one. Sociologist and scien-tific historian Robert Merton elegantly chronicled thequalities, or “norms” of science as Communism, Univer-salism, Disinterestedness, and Organized Scepticism,referred to by the acronym “CUDOS.” Is social network-ing providing us with more efficient ways of upholdingdeep-rooted principles, or are we at risk of compromis-ing the integrity of science by bypassing traditionalgatekeepers?

Throughout history, technological developments have pro-foundly influenced how and why scientists interact. Sciencehas weathered many communication revolutions, from theinvention of the printing press to the postal service and mostrecently—social networking. In the face of such change, thealready complex normative structure of contemporaryscience requires reevaluation (Anderson, Ronning, Devries,& Martinson, 2010).

Robert K. Merton, a prolific figure in the sociology ofscience, chronicled the qualities, or “norms” that distinguishscience from other disciplines, Communism, Universalism,Disinterestedness, and Organized Scepticism—referred toby the acronym “CUDOS” (Merton, 1979). A recent articleby Anderson et al. (2010, p. 393) explored subscription ofmodern scientists to Merton’s principles and concluded that,despite controversies, these norms remain the “communalproperty of science.” Merton’s norms have been tweeted,cited, and discussed on every social media site. MicrosoftAcademic search ranks him as the 24th most cited author in

history. He has amassed more than 4,000 citations and hasan h-index of 18. In debating the value of these norms overthe past 65 years, scientists have shared opinions withoutboundaries in an organized but skeptical way, therebyhonoring the integrity of these principles in discussing theirmerit. In this article, we pose the following question: Is theuse of social media in scientific practices compromising theintegrity of scholarly communication or leading us back toour Mertonian roots?

Scientists, like doctors, are struggling to balance profes-sionalism and social media use (McCartney, 2011, 2012).A literature review on the subject of scientists’ use ofsocial media yields some remarkable insights. In a recenteditorial, Van Eperen and Marincola (2011) assert that notonly are scientists utilizing social media to communicatetheir research, they must. Scientists are using social mediafor purposes as diverse as tracking disease activity (Signo-rini, Segre, & Polgreen, 2011) to advancing collaborativeresearch (Maxmen, 2010). Interestingly, one paper refers toa BioInformatics LLC survey regarding scientists andsocial media and reports that 85% of scientists surveyedfelt that social media content could “affect their decisionmaking” (Van Eperen & Marincola, 2011). Open accessjournals such as PLoS ONE and BMJ Open are increasingin popularity and aim to publish rapidly, leaving the task ofcritical appraisal largely in the hands of the anonymousreader. Postpublication peer review refers to the phenom-enon whereby papers are published in this manner and aresubsequently debated online via blogging, social media,and journal sites. Researchers face public and often untem-pered online criticism within days of publication, and thesechanges in the review process are likely to exert an influ-ence on the pattern of communication by the scientificcommunity (Brumfiel, 2009; Khan, 2010; Mandavilli,2011). Although advances in technology allow for moreimmediate mechanisms of disseminating, discussing, andpromoting scientific advances, the concept of open com-

Received May 21, 2012; revised July 30, 2012; accepted August 24, 2012

© 2013 ASIS&T • Published online 24 January 2013 in Wiley OnlineLibrary (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.22842

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 64(3):644–646, 2013

munication in science is not a new one. Richard Smith,1

former editor of the BMJ, believes that the move towardpostpublication social media peer review allows thescientific community to judge “not bewigged and gatheredin one elegant room as in the 18th century but connectedglobally through the internet.” How do these changes affectMertonian norms?

Communism, in a Mertonian sense, reflects the assertionthat good science is that which is communicated, visible,and shared freely (Merton, 1979). Blogs, Twitter, and Face-book appear to facilitate this by enabling scientists to inter-act unrestricted by temporal and spatial constraints. Forexample, a recent analysis piece in the journal Cell quoted ascientist: “Some people will browse through science jour-nals when they have a break. I look at the Twitter headlinesfrom the people I follow—mostly scientists and sciencejournalists” (Bonetta, 2009, p. 452). One could argue,however, that Merton refers to open communication of“good” science that has already undergone a rigorous peerreview process. While traditional publication channels con-tinue to disseminate knowledge in a conventional way,social media have the potential to alter the point at whichknowledge is discussed or promoted and the multiplicity ofInternet audiences have no measure of its scientific worthbeyond the social interest that it generates. Although newmedia may promote communism by ensuring more wide-spread availability of published data, transparency, clarity,and scientific merit in this context must be protected. Advo-cates of postpublication peer review consider wider reviewof scientific findings by nonscholarly audiences to be anadvantage. Traditional peer review allowed the scientificcommunity to have a stamp of approval, much like qualitycontrol marks for agricultural products. An article publishedin an international peer-reviewed journal is verified touphold a certain standard of scientific integrity, minimizingthe potential for misinformation and misinterpretation by anonscholarly audience. With Merton in mind, the aim mustbe to disseminate and promote “good” science using themost efficient method of communication technology avail-able to us in the era in which we live. The challenge of themodern scientist is to uphold quality control while harness-ing the facilitation of communism that the fluidity of onlinecommunication allows.

Universalism asserts that contribution to science and thatscientific merit should remain independent of race, nation-ality, culture, or gender. One could argue that, by applyingworth to social interest, scientific findings can transcendnational, political, or religious boundaries and achieve thesecond Mertonian norm of Universalism. However, mostsocial networks require participants to create an institutionaland academic profile that is available to the networkmembers and indeed is often used to determine their audi-ence. Universalism requires that the assessment of newscientific findings should not be colored by the author’s

reputation or past productivity and is therefore compromisedby the very structure of closed social networking. Further-more, in 2006 a detailed examination of a dynamic socialnetwork comprising 43,553 students, faculty, and staff at alarge university concluded that it is unclear to what extentindividuals are capable of strategically manipulating theirpositions in a large network (Kossinets & Watts, 2006).Although the authors caution that these findings may bespecific to the population they studied, they also found thatindividuals were more likely to interact if they had commoncontacts. Such complexities potentially hinder MertonianUniversalism. Merton advocates that limits on scientificclaims are dictated by the rules of science and not by theprejudices of society. Therefore, the practice of attributingworth to scientific discoveries according to public interestexpressed, for example, via a social media site, may para-doxically hinder universalism. Traditional peer review isgenerally anonymous. However, this anonymity is very dif-ferent from the level of anonymity of the Internet audience.Traditional peer review is performed by an anonymousmember of a preselected panel of individuals deemed to beexperts in a given field. Postpublication peer review is per-formed by anonymous members of a multiplicity of audi-ences who may represent any demographic or possess anylevel of expertise.

Like Communism, Disinterestedness has been subject tomisinterpretation due to its potential alternate meanings.Merton recognized, more than most, the passion and com-mitment which drives science. Disinterestedness, as Mertondescribed it, is the belief that scientists should be detachedfrom their findings. Blogging lends itself to the use of infor-mal language. If the motive of scientists in communicatingvia these forums is unbiased discussion, promotion, or dis-semination of data, injection of opinion must be consideredan impediment. Balancing the requirement to protect intel-lectual property with the desire to communicate impartiallyvia the Internet represents a clash of incentives that Mertoncould not have anticipated. The concept of disinterestednessalso demands that scientific work remains uncorrupted byself-interested motivations. Many researchers are governedby the enormous pressure of the “publish or perish” mental-ity. This may lead to publication for the sake of publication,again potentially compromising quality. Competition amongresearchers is not a new phenomenon, however, and Mertonhimself recognized the powerful influence of competitionfor scientific priority.

Organized Skepticism promotes “latent questioning”(Merton, 1938) and describes the principle that scienceshould undergo peer review before being widely shared. Inthe era of social media, discussion and skepticism havenever been easier. Open discussion regarding the scientificworth of papers on social networks promotes Mertonian“latent questioning”; however, perhaps we are losing theorganization of the process. Informal dissemination of datavia blogs or social networks and discussion in these chan-nels circumvents traditional or “organized” sentinels. In thissetting, quality must also be preserved. Although any

1http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/07/26/richard-smith-scientific-communication-is-returning-to-its-roots/

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—March 2013 645DOI: 10.1002/asi

Orwellian attempt to regulate social media discourse wouldbe akin to monitoring coffee-room discussions, scientistsshould be aware of the wider audience that has access to anydata disseminated informally. How do we differentiatebetween science that is widely discussed on social network-ing sites due to “tabloid” value versus that which are dis-cussed due to genuine scientific merit? Even in traditionalpublishing channels, increasing interest in bibliometrics hasblurred the lines of journalism and science. The currentsystem of peer review has been in place since the 17thcentury and change is necessary. However, instead of simplydiscarding the old system and adopting a new one, it isperhaps advisable to direct efforts toward finding practicalways of incorporating the best properties of our old systeminto the new one. We should encourage the formal exami-nation of researchers’ use of social media sites in greaterdetail, a task that has already begun (Maxmen, 2010; Signo-rini et al., 2011; Van Eperen & Marincola, 2011), and aim tolearn more about how scientists disseminate, discuss, andpromote their work.

Although modes of interaction between the two continueto evolve, society and science are inextricably linked. Para-doxically, the fact that information has never been easier toshare and discuss, via social networks and the Internet, couldlead to greater reluctance of researchers to communicatenovel findings. Scientific meetings are awash with bloggersand unpublished data can appear on the Internet before aspeaker has reached his concluding slide. A significant chal-lenge lies in disseminating “good” science to the populationwhile exploiting the enormous array of technology and itsability to make science more accessible and facilitate com-munism, universalism, disinteredness, and skepticism. Thescientific community must decide if Mertonian norms aredescriptive of aspirational behavior or prescriptive of a

required academic standard. As with most challenges, thefirst step in preserving the integrity of science, and by exten-sion society, in the era of Twitter, blogs, and Facebook isrecognition that advances in communication methods arehaving significant impacts on the sociology of science. Onlythrough open discussion of these issues, with Merton inmind, can we hope to harness the remarkable technologyavailable to us while preserving quality.

References

Anderson, M.S., Ronning, E.A., Devries, R., & Martinson, B.C. (2010).Extending the Mertonian norms: Scientists’ subscription to norms ofresearch. Journal of Higher Education, 81(3), 366–393.

Bonetta, L. (2009). Should you be tweeting? Cell, 139(3), 452–453.Brumfiel, G. (2009). Science journalism: Breaking the convention? Nature,

459(7250), 1050–1051.Khan, K. (2010). Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ, 341,

c6425.Kossinets, G., & Watts, D.J. (2006). Empirical analysis of an evolving

social network. Science, 311(5757), 88–90.Mandavilli, A. (2011). Peer review: Trial by Twitter. Nature, 469(7330),

286–287.Maxmen, A. (2010). Science networking gets serious. Cell, 141(3), 387–

389.McCartney, M. (2011). We shouldn’t fear social media. BMJ, 343, d4864.McCartney, M. (2012). How much of a social media profile can doctors

have? BMJ, 344, e440.Merton, R. (1979). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical

investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Merton, R.K. (1938). Science and the social order. Philosophy of Science,

5(3), 321–337.Signorini, A., Segre, A.M., & Polgreen, P.M. (2011). The use of Twitter to

track levels of disease activity and public concern in the U.S. during theinfluenza A H1N1 pandemic. PLoS ONE, 6(5), e19467.

Van Eperen, L., & Marincola, F.M. (2011). How scientists use social mediato communicate their research. Journal of Translational Medicine, 9, 199.

646 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—March 2013DOI: 10.1002/asi