{"id":8449,"date":"2024-08-07T06:07:41","date_gmt":"2024-08-07T06:07:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mikeyoungacademy.dk\/?p=8449"},"modified":"2026-02-28T07:28:58","modified_gmt":"2026-02-28T07:28:58","slug":"communities-of-scientists-are-emerging-on-bluesky","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mikeyoungacademy.dk\/da\/communities-of-scientists-are-emerging-on-bluesky\/","title":{"rendered":"Communities of scientists are emerging on Bluesky"},"content":{"rendered":"

Global network data: The \u2018nicer\u2019 alternative to X is fortifying its presence in fields that range from philosophy to chemistry, finance, and beyond. <\/strong><\/p>\n

We have extracted a new network of scientists and researchers<\/a><\/em>, and a new global list of 100 science \u2018influencers\u2019 on the social media platform Bluesky.<\/p>\n

And our numbers show that the community among scientists is getting stronger.<\/p>\n

When my good colleague Lasse Hjorth Madsen<\/a> <\/em>and I extracted the Bluesky numbers in February, we found 8,900 influential scientists on the platform that were followed by at least 30 other scientists in the same network.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Distinct scientific communities can be clearly identified in the interactive visualization<\/p><\/div>\n

Now there are 22,225 scientists that follow our definition \u2013 a 150 per cent increase.<\/p>\n

The uptick in numbers could be either from an increase in Bluesky scientist numbers; from an increase in the number of scientists following other scientists there; or from both of these factors.<\/p>\n

Network advantage<\/strong><\/p>\n

As a whole, Bluesky has shown only slow growth since February, with bursts of new users coming to the platform every time there is a new scandal by the owner of its larger competitor X (the former Twitter). It has 6 million users<\/a> as of July 2024, a minute fraction compared to platforms like X and LinkedIn.<\/p>\n

Scientists predominantly use X and LinkedIn for professional scientific networking, but with Bluesky and Mastodon in recent years hoping to break through as alternatives.<\/p>\n

\n

The fact that they are a small distinct community allows scientists to surveil and monitor their field, with less likelihood of their feeds being swamped by irrelevant posts<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

New social media platforms generally have a hard time competing against already consolidated incumbents.<\/p>\n

The received wisdom is that older platforms like LinkedIn and X already have the user numbers and engagement. Users that join a newer platform therefore experience fewer meaningful conversations and activity, as there is less chance to meet people there initially that are closer to them socially, geographically, and in terms of common interest.<\/p>\n

One community at a time<\/strong><\/p>\n

However, my claim is that it might not exactly<\/em> work like that in the world of science.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Lasse and I have been working on mapping out researchers’ social media communities for several years now.<\/p><\/div>\n

Scientists can gain an advantage<\/em> from forming tight-knit communities of like-minded colleagues in specific fields. The fact that they are a small distinct community allows scientists to surveil and monitor their field, with less likelihood of their feeds being swamped by irrelevant posts.<\/p>\n

And they are more likely to take the step to a smaller platform so long as a smaller community within their field already exists there.<\/p>\n

To use a metaphor, scientists are like particles of dust at the beginning of our Solar System. As they \u2018collide\u2019 (or are introduced by colleagues to a new social platform within their field) they gradually form larger bodies like planets. These \u2018planets\u2019 are the communities that we now see.<\/p>\n

This might be what is happening on Bluesky.<\/p>\n

Our extraction of data shows a series of distinct communities. Within each of these communities the users tend to follow each other:<\/p>\n