How to be kind on social media – a guide for scientists

/0 Comments/by

11 ways to make your social media presence reflect the best of what science can be

Let’s make kindness the new norm on social media!

Extract from ‘The School of Athens’ (1509-11) by Raphael

By consciously cultivating a culture of kindness in our online interactions, we actively maintain a social media space around us where ideas are shared, critiques are constructive, and connections are genuine in the scientific community.

It is not just about being polite – it’s about setting off a positive chain reaction, and ultimately helping the advancement of science.

By treating other scientists on social media with kindness, we can better foster innovation, ideation, and intellectual growth in the academic community.

I recently committed Mike Young Academy to the Excellence and Kindness in Research Initiative (ELIS), and this inspired me to set up examples of kind scientist interactions. Have I forgotten any ways to be kind on social media as a scientist? Let me know in the comments, and I will iterate this list as we go along!

Be a force for the good!

The 11 kind habits


1. Post with gratitude

Sharing your findings is not just about boosting your h-index. It’s about contributing to the scientific community. Your research builds on the work of countless others, and in turn, your findings might serve as the foundation for future discoveries. When you share your work, you are paying forward the generosity of those who came before you.

Example: Publicly thank a mentor or collaborator for their support on a project on LinkedIn: ‘Couldn’t have completed this without the guidance of @MentorName — your insights were invaluable!’
Also: Always remember to acknowledge by tagging with ‘@’ the producers of texts, graphics and photos that you share.

2. Offer as many details — as you can

Share as much of your doubts about data and methods as you can on social media. You might worry that this openness could expose you to criticism or that someone might ‘scoop’ your work. And sometimes there may be other reasons to not share data or methods before publication. We all need space for reflection and feedback from a smaller group before we are willing to share our research. But often the caveats and fears are unfounded. When you share your ongoing concerns, you invite collaboration, encourage replication, and help others to build on your work.

Example: In your social media update, link to a blog post where you openly summarize and discuss any challenges or uncertainties you faced during your research. For example, ‘During our study on Y, we encountered some unexpected results that we’re still trying to understand. We initially hypothesized A, but our data suggested something different. If anyone has insights or has faced similar issues, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

3. Amplify others’ work

Social media platforms can elevate the impact of others, particularly those who may not have the same reach or recognition as yourself. It might seem counterintuitive to promote others when you are striving for your own recognition within a given field.  But when you retweet a colleague’s paper, even a colleague who is doing ‘competing’ work close to your own field, you are contributing to a more inclusive and supportive scientific community.

Example: Repost a colleague’s publication announcement on X with a comment like, ‘Don’t miss this important paper on B by @ColleagueName — great contribution to our understanding of C!’

4. Share your failures

Share the challenges, the failed experiments, the rejections. This doesn’t mean wallowing in negativity, but rather providing a balanced view of what it means to be a scientist. Your authenticity can help demystify the process for others, particularly for early-career scientists who might feel isolated in their struggles.

The University of Graz in Austria even goes as far as to encourage an error-friendly research culture with its Forum of Failures and Fiascos Repository.

Example:  Post about a failed experiment or rejected grant on LinkedIn, sharing what you learned from the experience. For example, ‘While this grant didn’t go through, the feedback was invaluable and has strengthened my future proposals. Happy to discuss if anyone’s interested in what I learned.’

You can even share it without saying what you learned from the experience. In many ways, this can be better, as it does not presume that your failure is actually a ‘success’.

‘I just received word that my grant application for [project] wasn’t successful. I will get over it, but right now it’s a tough pill to swallow.’

5. Give constructive feedback

When a colleague shares a link to their research, your first inclination is to ‘like’ it, because you want to show your appreciation and help your colleague’s post do well with the algorithms. This is fine. But this is also the point to provide specific, constructive comments that promote further reflection — also among others who see your colleague’s post.

Example: Reply below an X post (tweet): ‘This is a fascinating approach to A. Have you considered how B might influence your results? I’d love to discuss this further.’

6: Connect other people (for their sake, not yours!)

In a field as competitive as academia, it can feel hard to have the energy to promote others when you are also striving for your own recognition.

But it’s not just about you. When you retweet a colleague’s paper, highlight an early-career researcher’s achievement, or share a thoughtful thread from a lesser-known scientist, you are contributing to a more inclusive and supportive scientific community.

Your goal should be to enable new thought, not to ‘win’ an argument.

By introducing your connections to others who might benefit from knowing each other. It should create value for both parties. Maybe there is a job offer, a research collaboration opportunity, or a course that you think another person should be aware of. Maybe they just share a common interest.

Example: Write a direct LinkedIn message to A:  ‘Hey A, I came across this job opening for a pharmaceutical scientist at [Company Name]. It seems like a great fit, especially with your experience with [specific skill or project]. You’d be a strong candidate.”

Alternatively, introduce two people in your network who might benefit from knowing each other: “@Person1, meet @Person2—both of you are doing fantastic work on F and might find some great synergies!’

7. Respond thoughtfully

It can be tempting to react immediately to a post, particularly if it challenges your views or position, or if you perceive it as an encroachment upon your own status in a field.

But you should take a moment to think before you respond. Is your comment adding value to the conversation? Are you respecting the original poster’s perspective, even if you disagree? A rushed or poorly considered reply can discourage someone from sharing their ideas in the future.

Resist the urge to dominate the conversation. Your goal should be to enable new thought, not to ‘win’ an argument. This approach is not only kinder but contributes to a healthier, more productive, and more intellectually stimulating scientific discourse.

This ties in well with the thoughts expressed by Venkatesh Rao, an Indian-American author and consultant who referred to social media, as the ‘global computer in the cloud’. There is something noble, something human, and something productive on it. But to participate in it, you have to be willing to stop using it strategically to communicate a message that has already been prepared.

Respect your audience’s intelligence and engage in real dialogue, even if you suspect (inside!) that your audience will find it difficult to grasp

Social media platforms amplify those with the ‘loudest’ voices so they dominate newsfeeds. Make a conscious effort to listen to those softer voices who are either not represented at all, or who are drowned out by all the heavy hitters. This isn’t just a nice thing to do — it’s an ethical responsibility.

Example: Set up a bookmarked LinkedIn search with keywords related to your field, such as ‘neuroscience research’ or ‘supercritical fluids’, and filter for your location, or for your university. This search will act as an alternative newsfeed, bringing up posts and discussions from your own institution from early career scientists that are not in your own network and that have not been fed to you by the LinkedIn algorithm. Regularly thoughtfully comment on the posts that are valuable, but that have not set off long discussions.

8. Promote reflection and slowness

The urgency of the new on social media creates a sense of vertigo and stress on the platforms used by scientists: If you don’t follow your field on a day-by-day basis you are somehow ‘behind’.

Fight this focus on the new. By having a routine to repost older, yet still relevant, content from your network you can push back against the underlying premise of social media in science: That it is only the place for the ‘latest’.

Deliberately repost posts from your network that are NOT the latest showing up on your feed. This could be something that is still relevant, but that was posted a year ago.

Example: Set up a throwback science routine, perhaps weekly or monthly, where you resurface valuable older posts from others. Give it a name like ‘Throwback Science’ or ‘Timeless Insights’. Credit the original poster, and express appreciation for their contribution in the post.  You can ask open-ended questions like, ‘How have your views on Z evolved since this was originally posted?’

9. Assume good intent

By assuming that others are engaging in good faith, scientists can foster a more constructive and respectful dialogue. This is particularly relevant in science because discussions often involve complex, nuanced topics where misunderstandings can easily arise.

Example: Someone posted about your paper on Bluesky: ‘Interesting paper on climate modeling, but I think the authors overlooked some key variables in their analysis.’

Here is an example of a response under this post that is not assuming good intent: ‘Clearly, you didn’t read the methodology section properly. The variables you’re talking about were accounted for.’

Never, ever, using the word ‘groundbreaking’ in any post that is not about digging holes in the ground!

And here is an example of a response assuming good intent: ‘Thanks for pointing that out! It’s a complex area — could you elaborate on which variables you think were missed? I’d love to understand your perspective.’

10. Trust that other people are bright people

Respect your audience’s intelligence and engage in real dialogue, even if you suspect (inside!) that your audience will find it difficult to grasp:

Example: When responding to questions or comments, approach them as an opportunity for dialogue rather than a one-way teaching moment. Instead of correcting someone bluntly, say, ‘That’s an interesting point. Have you considered how Y might influence Z?’ This opens up a conversation rather than shutting it down.

11. Be sincere

Literally ‘groundbreaking’ (and AI-generated by Dall E)

This means no clickbait. No sexing up. And it means never, ever, using the word ‘groundbreaking’ in any post that is not about digging holes in the ground!

Example: Write a thread on X with all the caveats: ‘This new paper on E has some interesting findings, but keep in mind the small sample size. Worth discussing!’

So that’s it! Have I forgotten any practical ways in which you can be kind on social media as a scientist? Feel free to write them in the comments.

Does your department, faculty or university need to boost the international impact and career of your researchers? Here is more about my courses in social media for researchers. See other Mike Young Academy services here.

Ethics part 4: Ethical duties and commitments on social media

/0 Comments/by

It is not all about you! Generosity and the obligations scientists have to others on social media

I have talked about the functions and utilities of social media. The vast majority of participants on my workshops sign up because they know social media are useful. As a scientist, social platforms can help you communicate, network and ideate.

I have also talked about the mindful, self-caring application of social media for scientists. This is how you can ‘exploit’ the platforms so that you can communicate, network, and ideate, without the platforms ‘exploiting’ you in the process.

We could just stop there: You are concentrated, interested, focused, and healthy, and you have a productive social media presence that helps you achieve your own research goals. You have struck a perfect balance between your need for the functions and gains from social media, and your own mental health.

Leap of gratefulness

But there is a third, ethical, level to social media use that is hardly ever addressed.

Ethics here means the obligations of scientists as social media users.

If we just stopped at the tug of war between social media and our own mental health – if we only took a mindful approach to social media use, we are missing out on some of the most important facets of what social media also does: Namely helping others.

It is not all about you.

An ethical approach to social media in research. Each stair represents a function of social media in science. Each of these functions entails an obligation to other scientists, to the scientific community, and to society.

Let us start with the communication function.

As a scientist, you want to communicate with your peers, stakeholders and the wider public, and you are aware that you are competing for other people’s attention on social media. Why not just do the absolute minimum, and just post about your own stuff to satisfy the people who funded you?

Because there is an ethical dimension to social media use.

The fact that you working on a subject that fascinates you, and that society wants you to do it, should be something that you are grateful for. There are millions of people who have made your present scientific life possible. The designer of the neutron beam in your experiment, the salesperson that originally negotiated with your university for a Microsoft package, the builder that cemented the bricks that keeps you out of the winter rain.

Because it is difficult

We all hate the LinkedIn posts about how grateful we are for this and that: Especially when it comes across as a kind of humblebragging, or subtle indirect boasting when we have just achieved a milestone or success.

But there is an ethical obligation to communicate our work in a more fundamental sense. Namely because we are returning the favour that has been granted us by all these unseen millions.

The ethics and obligations of social media can clash with the function and the mindful self-care of it. You are obligated to share your experiences as a scientist, simply because everyone else made it possible for you. And you are obligated even if it is difficult.

In the end you are a part of a big congratulatory merry-go-round, where the only posts you see on a newsfeed are people with success. This can be very depressing.

And this brings me to another point.

It could be useful for you to post something on social media, and you have a nice mindful routine to do so with the minimum amount of stress. But it would still not be ethical, if its purpose was only to distract people, and bait them to click on something that did not offer long-term value. Only you can be the judge of this, and the platforms will not help you.

No fake universe here

So I call on you to be kind.

There are too many posts out there that brag about grants and prizes that you have won. Far fewer people share their struggles and insecurities. This creates a kind of fake universe, where everyone is happy, working, interested, and engaged in ‘groundbreaking’ science.

LinkedIn, in particular, can get bad in this respect. The algorithm can send you into a self-reinforcing loop. As you give a ‘like’ to a researcher colleague who has posted about her winning a grant, the LinkedIn newsfeed shows you more content from this person, and more content like this type of post. In the end you are a part of a big congratulatory merry-go-round, where the only posts you see on a newsfeed are people with success. This can be very depressing.

An ethical approach would be to consciously avoid bragging about your successes, so that you do not contribute to this. This is really, REALLY difficult. (Note: I don’t think I would be able to do it consistently. I am too dependent on social media gratification. But should other people do it. Oh yes!)

This table summarizes the functions and ethical dimensions of using social media as a scientist

Let us talk about the networking function of social media in terms of ethics.

Meeting scholars in your own field, and people who work in areas related to your field, give you access to better opportunities. Highly networked people tend to float to the top.

Being mindful, you know that it is the singular, not the many, connections that matter, and that social media numbers are just vanity metrics. But there is still something that we have missed from an ethical point of view.

For their sake, not for yours

What about the connections between others, or third parties? One of the best things about professional social media is how it links up others, that is, forges links between people who know you in common. They call it triadic closure: If you are the link that two people have in common, they will likely be linked at some point in the future. You can help this along the way by getting people into contact with each other for specific things.

There is an ethical obligation to offer prompt feedback on your colleagues’ ideas — at the moment when you see it

You should forge connections between two who are unaware of each other, for their own sake, not for yours. Maybe there is a research or course opportunity that you think another person should be aware of. Maybe they share a common interest. Either way, they will always be grateful.

LinkedIn is particularly good at allowing these opportunities not to go to waste, as people regularly tag people in the comment field to let someone else know. It is simple, after all. All you have to do is write ‘@’ and add their name.

Finally there is the ethical approach to the ideation function of social media for scientists.

Scientists use social media to test and delimit the scope of their own ideas.  And they can be mindful of protecting their own space, so that social media does not intrude upon their own deep work.

But there is also an ethical obligation to offer prompt feedback on your colleagues’ ideas at the moment when you see it.

You should give a first hearing to a perspective that is not your own, even if it clashes with your own conception of an issue or problem when you read the first two sentences of a social media post.

You should help young scientists.

And finally, you should work to maintain an open, and kind scientific community on the platforms that are used within your own field.

I want to thank the following thinkers who have recently helped me develop my own ideas on this. These include Thomas Bandholm, who is developing a framework for excellence and kindness in research training, Christine Møller, a leader in researcher courses for medical writing, and Raluca Stana, whose own focus is on the sociology of stress and technology.

Feedback appreciated!

I appreciate you reading this and reflecting with me! And I appreciate any comments or thoughts! Feel free to comment below.

My introduction to this series is here: Social media ethics for scientists – setting a new standard.

I then looked at the basic functions of social media for scientists, where I unfold my tripartite model. Scientists use social media for three main reasons: It helps them communicate, network with others, and get inspired or ideate.

In my third post I developed how scientists can care for themselves while exploiting the functions of social media, and how they can set up sustainable routines.

This was my fourth and (so far) final post in the series.

Does your department, faculty or university need to boost the international impact and career of your researchers? Here is more about my courses in social media for researchers. See other Mike Young Academy services here.

Ethics part 3: The mindful use of social media as a researcher

/0 Comments/by

On self care — and how scientists can set up sustainable routines for social media

Social media platforms are designed to distract you. They sell ads to businesses that are targeted on your demographic and interests. And these ads from businesses are designed to get you to click on them, or at least dwell on them, as you scroll past. The ads themselves are based on your own social media profile bio information, age, location, previous interactions, interests, and scrolling activity.

We can’t all be as relaxed as the wanderer in this DALL.E interpretation of a Caspar David Friedrich painting. But we can take care of ourselves anyway

Social media platforms, however, are not completely aligned with their own advertisers’ interests. They, unlike the advertisers, also want you to stay on the platforms, and they want you to keep on returning if you leave them to do something else.

That they want you to happily return to their platform is actually what is keeping them honest. Too much addiction, too much manipulation, and too much virality is a bad thing for social media platforms. What they want is happily returning users.

The sum of attention on the platforms is finite.

They also want you to produce content (articles, pictures, videos, graphics) for their platform, as this grabs the attention of your followers, allowing in turn more ads to be shown to more people.

Your terms

As a scientist your interests are neither completely aligned with the advertisers nor the social media platforms. You want to use all of the three functions of social media: Communication, networking and ideation. And on your own terms.

You want to communicate, but only when you feel the need for it. You want to network with other scholars, but not be distracted. You want to be inspired, but also maintain your focus and control over your own information environment.

So there is a tug of war going on. The platforms want you to produce attention-grabbing content yourself and return to the platform regularly. They are, in this way, ‘exploiting’ you for your content and your attention.

You, on the other hand, tug in the other direction. With good healthy social media routines, you are ‘exploiting’ the platforms’ communication, networking and ideation affordances for your own ends.

My social media workshops are all about these routines. You need to learn techniques to avoid the soft addiction that the platforms can lead to. But you also need to learn how to use the platforms in a way that ‘exploits’ their communication, networking, and ideation potential.

Avoiding the newsfeeds

Take the LinkedIn home newsfeed for example.

If you follow the routine that LinkedIn wants you to, you regularly open up your LinkedIn app, on both phone and desktop, and scroll down the newsfeed. As you interact with the content that it algorithmically delivers to you on your own home newsfeed, by either stopping your scroll, clicking on content, commenting, or liking posts, the feed will take these signals to design your newsfeed the next time you enter the app.

One of the ways scientists can take more control over their newsfeeds is to set up a series of search strings on the search field in LinkedIn, with keywords. This will deliver a new ‘newsfeed’ that is more focused on your own research area.

There is no point in being top-of-mind with thousands, if you are actually working with none.

On X, for example, there are other routines that have the same effect, effectively sidetracking the platform’s algorithmically designed newsfeeds. Using Tweetdeck, which is now the paid version called X Pro, you can set up search terms that sift through the X content, so that you only see types of content that you deliberately want to see (on my workshops I show participants a workaround so they can do this for free).

For each benefit — there is a reservation

I have summarized what I call the mindful approach to social media for scientists in the figure below.

A mindful approach to social media in research. Each stair represents a function of social media in science. In order to practice self-care, you will have to deliberately delimit yourself on each of these stairs.

The mindful approach to social media involves being aware of the benefits to you personally from using social media. You need to communicate your work, network with other scholars, and do the best science that is possible.

But for each of these benefits and functions; communication, networking and ideation; there is a reservation.

You want to communicate.

But you are fully aware that you are entering an attention game on the platforms. The sum of attention on the platforms is finite. When you post about your science, you are competing with other scientists for other people’s attention. Sometimes you are competing for other scientists and stakeholders’ attention, and this can be a zero-sum game.

You want to network.

The platforms will keep you hooked by giving you ever larger follower numbers. These numbers become a goal in themselves. But like in so many other things in life. In the world of science more is not necessarily better. The goal of your networking efforts is not to have a large network. The goal of your networking efforts is to find the right people to work with. There is no point in being top-of-mind with thousands, if you are actually working with none.

Your own deep concentration, can be undermined by linking your own cognitive processes to a wider ‘collective cognition’

Finally, you want to improve your research.

But if you constantly tap in to the community of scientists on the social media platforms and only react to what is happening in your field through this, you are not leaving enough space for your own thought.

The ideation that comes from your own deep concentration, or work with close colleagues, can be undermined by constantly linking your own cognitive processes to a wider ‘collective cognition’ on X.

Setting off time for deep work

A sustainable mindful routine for a scientist will involve deliberately jumping in and out of the social media space at set times, and setting off time for deep work with no social media obligations or notifications.

Maybe your work on social media is in this way delimited to early in the morning for 30 minutes. You might, thereby, miss out on a scholarly debate that is taking place in real time on X or Bluesky.

But you will be a better person for it.

By delimiting your time to set times in your schedule, you will miss out on some things: There is a lot to be said about the real time moment, and the X window, and the drone scientist and military historian James Rogers formulated it well when I talked to him here.

But we are here for the long haul.

Feedback appreciated!

My introduction to this series is here: Social media ethics for scientists – setting a new standard.

I then looked at the basic functions of social media for scientists, where I unfold my tripartite model. Scientists use social media for three main reasons: It helps them communicate, network with others, and get inspired or ideate.

This, my third post in the series, is about the self-care approach to scientists’ social media use on each of these three dimensions. How can scientists exploit social media without getting exploited by the platforms?

My final post takes on ethical obligations. What are the ethical grounds for social media use as a scientist? How can we use social media as a power for the good, and without harming others?

I hope you will read and reflect with me! And I appreciate any comments or thoughts!

Does your department, faculty or university need to boost the international impact and career of your researchers? Here is more about my courses in social media for researchers. See other Mike Young Academy services here.

Ethics part 2: Why do scientists use social media?

/0 Comments/by

Part two in a four part series on the function, self-care, and ethics of scientist social media use.

Scientists use social media for a reason. They fulfil certain professional functions. In this post I want to look at these functions as a first step before I look at the self-care and ethical dimensions of them. You can read my introduction to this series here.

The way I see it, there are three overarching functions:

  • Communication
  • Networking
  • Ideation

Let us look at each of these in detail:

Communication – to let others see your work

Social media can be used to get your self, your research process, and your results, seen.

Let us call this the communication function.

Social media platforms allow you to better control your ‘networking pathway’.

By posting on social media, your working self is visible to your peers, your stakeholders, and the general public: Your peers are your fellow scientists, in and outside your own field. Your stakeholders are non-scientists working in areas that are somehow related to your work, like people working for a funding agency, your university, a lobby group or politicians. The general public is a term that covers anyone outside these groups — meaning all of the good people out there who are interested in your work.

It is a good thing when the actual process, rather than just the result of your work, is seen by others — and social media are good at this. They are designed to show people in action.

Posts that show actual work in process allow your peers, your funders, and the general public to look over your shoulder and see science unfolding before their eyes. It invokes their curiosity, and it has the positive side effect of making you more approachable to people outside your field.

Why use social media in research at all? The staircases diagram above summarizes some of the key social media functions

Finished research, in the form of links to published scientific articles and papers, is also often posted to social media. And studies in multiple fields show that there is a higher chance of published work being cited if a link to it is at the same time posted on a social media platform. This seems intuitive, as there is a higher chance that other scientists will be inspired by your work, if they have seen it via their peers’ interactions with it on social media. I collaborate with other experts on workshops where we show scientists how to strategically use routines for quality reporting, open access publishing and preprints, as well as social media, to better promote research.

What about the general public?

Media organizations used to have a gatekeeping monopoly over what the public sees in terms of science. Social media have enabled a democratization of this process: Media no longer solely decide which scientists, or which science, is accessible to the wider public. In fact quite the opposite takes place: Media coverage can sometimes lag behind the general public’s scientific conversation by simply acting as echo chambers for trending scientists on social media.

With social media, you don’t have to play (or compete in) the traditional media game at all

My own career background has been in media. My goal as a journalist and editor was to reach a large numbers of interested readers, and keep them coming back for more. In terms of science, however, curious readers are a diverse bunch. They are often interested in very specific things. With the advent of social media, you as a scientist can reach the readers who are specifically interested in your work. You don’t have to play (or compete) in the traditional media at all.

Networking – meeting scholars in your own field

Scientists also use social media to network with others.

We meet new people all the time. And we would meet new people even if there were no social media.

But social media platforms allow you to strategically focus your networking pathway and thereby deliberately select other new people you want to meet. They also allow you to subsequently confirm (via say a ‘connection’ or a ‘follow’) your in-person, real life meetings, thereby increasing the chance of future interactions.

‘Scientific Twitter’ allowed scientists to jump in and out of a permanent, ongoing conversation within their own field

This is why the social media platforms are here to stay in science. They allow scientists to easily get an overview of who it is that is working on their specific field throughout the world. This, in turn, allows them to exploit the social phenomenon called the ‘Strength of Weak Ties’.

social network graph

The weakest links may be the most effective. Graph of my own social network on Linkedin from the now defunct Socilab.com.

The Strength of Weak Ties phenomenon explains why scientists who are institutionally, academically and geographically far away, can be more valuable to you in a networking sense than the scientists who are close by. This is counterintuitive, but can be explained like this:  Someone far away, in a different field, is also someone outside your social horizon. A connection to this person — a ‘weak tie’ — gives you a more fruitful access to a whole new set of connections, ideas and opportunities. People with stronger institutional, academic and social ties to you tend to only reinforce connections, ideas and opportunities that you have already.

Especially the former Twitter (now X), in a phenomenon called ‘scientific Twitter’, allowed scientists to jump in and out of a permanent, ongoing conversation within their own scientific field. It was the ultimate enabler of weak ties, and a huge scientific conversation that ultimately helped advance science and scientists.

Ideation – to improve your research quality

Scientists use social media to join their peers in a scientific conversation. By doing this they hope to be inspired by colleagues within their specific field and interest.

By using social media in this way you are, metaphorically speaking, uploading and downloading your own thought processes to and from the big emergent scientific ‘cloud’ up in the sky. Every morning, you might open your X account to see what your colleagues are doing throughout the world. After commenting and offering your own ideas, you jump off the platform and do your own work, and then return later in the day to the platform to ask your peers another question.

Social media platforms allow you to strategically focus your networking pathway

Sometimes you are inspired by others’ methods, sometimes you yourself are the source of inspiration to others.

Either way, you are using the platforms to help you along your own scientific thought pathway and test the scope of your own ideas.

Scientists are sometimes members of what I call ‘communities of interpretation’. This means that they use a platform to interpret a scientific object, like a picture, graph, table or infographic. Maybe you are part of a group of vets in a veterinarian group on LinkedIn that discusses pictures of sick pets? Or maybe you are a part of a group of cardiologists that discusses pictures of electrocardiograms? These groups are spontaneously emerging communities of interpretation that the platforms have enabled.

Scientists also use social media to manage their own information environment. By being a part of a research community on X, for example, you keep abreast of developments within your field. A ‘like’ or a retweet on X can be a way to ‘keep a file of something for later’ – a way of taking a note so that you can return to it later in the course of the day.

As scientists gain experience … they increasingly move away from thinking of social media as purely something to do with communication …

Finally scientists use social media to save time. Social media like LinkedIn are huge directories of contact details and skills. Less time is therefore spent on updating email addresses and contacts, and when you need to get hold of someone, or a group of people, social media allow you to do this also. On X, for example, the ‘circle’ function allows you to focus a tweet on a specific named group of people – perfect for quickly making people aware of a talk or event.

Experience shifts you towards networking and ideation

Now let me tell you something interesting.

I sometimes start my workshops by asking participants why other scientists use social media. I have also regularly asked the same question to a series of social media practitioners in interviews for my blog.

As scientists gain experience on social media, they assess it as being more valuable in its networking and ideation functions

Scientists who are inexperienced on social media tend to respond that other scientists use social media to communicate.

Scientists who have some experience on social media tend to respond that other scientists use social media to network.

Scientists who have the most experience and who consider themselves superusers also tend to respond that other scientists network. But they also respond that other scientists use social media to to improve their own research, and help with their own ideas: To ideate.

So now we have another dimension to the table and typology that I am making: Social media experience.

As scientists gain experience and find a social media routine that works for them, they increasingly move away from thinking of social media as purely something to do with communication of their work. Instead, they think of social media in terms of meeting interesting people and improving their own ideation processes and research.

Feedback appreciated!

My introduction to this series is here: Social media ethics for scientists – setting a new standard.

You have just read this second part covering the basic functions of social media for scientists, where I unfold my tripartite model. Scientists use social media for three main reasons: It helps them communicate, network with others, and get inspired or ideate.

My third post in the series is about the self-care approach to scientists’ social media use on each of these three dimensions. How can scientists exploit social media without getting exploited by the platforms?

My final post (coming up!) will take on ethical obligations. What are the ethical grounds for social media use as a scientist? How can we use social media as a power for the good, and without harming others?

I hope you will read and reflect with me! And I appreciate any comments or thoughts!

Does your department, faculty or university need to boost the international impact and career of your researchers? Here is more about my courses in social media for researchers. See other Mike Young Academy services here.

Ethics part 1: Social media ethics for scientists – setting a new standard

/0 Comments/by

Researchers use social media to communicate, network with others, and get ideas. In the coming weeks I will sketch out my model for doing this in a healthy, meaningful and decent way

People talk about getting sucked into the academic rat race.

Time to do some heavy thinking

It is as if university institutions are set up to foster competition between you and your fellow researchers in terms of papers published, grants given, and citations counted.

But there is one type of academic competition that is – as I see it – a dead end. It is a competition that you are never going to win. And in the long term, winning may actually be losing.

It is the competition between you and your fellow academics on social media. As someone who helps academics, I recognize it in myself also. I am embarrassed about it, and I fight it: The compulsive returning to the LinkedIn app to see if my post got another ‘like’. The clicking to see how my comment lifted the view count got on X. The hidden satisfaction in seeing my new Bluesky account follower numbers grow.

You can just opt out of it

The good thing is. You can just opt out of it.  Even better: You can use social media to make the other competitions in academia more meaningful also.

And I have now made it my mission to design my workshops around doing just that. Helping scientists use social media for networking and getting ideas, but in a sustainable and ethical way.

I will admit to sometimes being a part of the problem. Institutions order my social media workshops because their scientists want to increase their reach. And the workshops do just that.

Turn for the worse

A few years ago, I even inadvertently tapped into this (unhealthy) competition when I set up my TwiLi Index which ranked Nordic scientists on their LinkedIn and X (formerly Twitter) following numbers and centrality.

It started off as a bit of fun. And most of the time it was (and is) — indeed – fun.

I had made the index to do a good thing. It was, and is, an experiment to help otherwise marginalized scientists

The TwiLi Index also had a good purpose. It gave visibility to researchers, often international or junior, who had huge impact but who were not visible in a traditional Nordic media space that all too often focused on their own celebrity local-language speaking senior scientists.

But each time I released the TwiLi index I was swamped with emails and messages from people who wanted to boost their own score.  Worse: Some of the emails were from people who denigrated specific other researchers, who they put down and wanted me to relegate.

It was not a pretty sight.

New model

The TwiLi index implicitly, though not explicitly, seemed to assess scientists’ relative status and the centrality of their research, not just their success on social media.

I had made the index to do a good thing. It was, and is, an experiment to help otherwise marginalized scientists. But the TwiLi Index also draws people into an unhealthy competition, where the premise is that higher numbers are better numbers.

This, and the hundreds of conversations I have had with scientists at my workshops, has got me thinking about developing a model for social media use that takes on a more mindful and ethical approach.

Based on my TwiLi Index and workshops, I already had a tripartite model for the three basic functions of social media for scientists: Communication, Networking and Ideation.

How can scientists exploit social media without letting social media exploit them?

But in my new model, each of these functions have corresponding self-care and ethical dimensions.

In the following series that I will post over the coming weeks I want to unfold my thinking on this.

Feedback appreciated!

My second blog post is about the basic functions of social media for scientists and unfolds the tripartite model. Scientists use social media for a reason: It helps them communicate, network with others, and get inspired.

My third blog post will be about the self-care approach to scientists’ social media use. How can scientists exploit social media without letting social media exploit them?

My final blog post will take on ethical obligations. What are the ethical grounds for social media use as a scientist? How can we use social media as a power for the good, and without harming others?

I hope you will read and reflect with me! And I appreciate any comments or thoughts!

Does your department, faculty or university need to boost the international impact and career of your researchers? Here is more about my courses in social media for researchers. See other Mike Young Academy services here.