Tweeting your research – Really?

With the recent launch of a Twitter-only journal, @TwournalOf, and the ‘How-to-Tweet’ website for scientists, Tweet Your Science, I’ve been wondering about the reality of tweeting your research. I had a go with a research paper that I’ve been working with recently here, here and here.

When I attempt to tweet the same paper then I get what is effectively a title. Although, with just 74 characters, I still have room for the link without using


Response to rheumatoid arthritis could be predictable from patient’s urine.


An important consideration here is the word ‘predictable’. If I exchange it for predicted:

Response to rheumatoid arthritis could be predicted from patient’s urine.

The sentence is now ambiguous. Do I mean that the response was predicted in the study (which it wasn’t) or, more correctly, might be predicted in the future with this research, i.e. predictable?


When you’re limited to just a few words, it’s very important to ensure that the meaning is clear. This is particularly pertinent when there is no further information to provide context. I’m fascinated to see what happens with the Twitter-only journal and I will be keeping my eyes peeled (i.e. watching my Twitter feed) for the launch. Here are some responses on their twitter feed so far…





What do you think about this journal – Will it work? Will you submit to it? Would you cite it? Is this the future of digital publishing? Can you imagine tweeting your research?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *