Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management

Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management

Content analysis and Opinion mining of Tweets about Open Access and its Main Features

Authors
zeinab Saber
Hajar Sotudeh
Zahra Yousefi
Farshad Khunjush
Farzin Ghanbari Aloni
10.52547/jipm.37.1.305
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the main features of Open Access tweeted by Twitter users and to analyze their opinions about them. A sample of English tweets about Open Access was identified and analyzed using a quantitative content analysis method with opinion mining approach. To do so, based on a wide literature review, the main features of Open Access discussed in the literature were identified and used to compose the search formula. This step retrieved 874270 tweets. The data were, then, cleaned using exact match search in Excel, resulting in a sample consisting of 165320 relevant tweets. The sample was, then, classified into four thematic groups including “costs and financial resources”, “publication and resources”, “models” and “validity and quality”. To analyze the tweets’ contents and calculate their opinion scores, the KNIME and SentiStrength applications were used, respectively. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics in Excel and SPSS. The results showed that the concepts related to the Open Access “publication and resources” have been tweeted the most. The group being set aside given its all-inclusive nature, the “credibility and quality” as well as the “costs and financial resources” are the two main issues discussed by Twitter users. According to the opinion mining results, more than half of the tweets were neutral and the positive opinions are of slightly higher frequency compared to the negative ones. The “credibility and quality” and the “costs and financial resources” received more negative tweets. Thus, in line with previous surveys conducted to explore the concerns of researchers and stakeholders about Open Access, the present study provided an almost similar picture for the social space. Since Open Access to scientific information is a necessity for the development of knowledge-based societies, the results highlight the need to take serious steps to strengthen its positive points and devise solutions to the problems and challenges leading to the negative feedbacks.
Keywords
Open access
Sentiment Analysis
Opinion Mining
Social networks
Twitter
  1. جوکار، خدیجه. 1397. امکان‌سنجی تعیین اعتبار مقالات علمی به روش عقیده‌کاوی: نمونه مورد مطالعه مقالات دسترسی آزاد پایگاه سایت سییر. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی. دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز.
  2. جوکار، خدیجه. 1397. امکان‌سنجی تعیین اعتبار مقالات علمی به روش عقیده‌کاوی: نمونه مورد مطالعه مقالات دسترسی آزاد پایگاه سایت سییر. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد علم اطلاعات و دانش‌شناسی. دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز.
  3. حسن‌زاده، محمد، و فرزانه کنعانی هوچقان. 1389. بررسی موانع ایجاد دسترسی آزاد مجله‌های علمی ـ پژوهشی ایران از دید ناشران. فصلنامه کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی 13 (1): 35-52.
  4. حسن‌زاده، محمد، و فرزانه کنعانی هوچقان. 1389. بررسی موانع ایجاد دسترسی آزاد مجله‌های علمی ـ پژوهشی ایران از دید ناشران. فصلنامه کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی 13 (1): 35-52.
  5. زوارقی، رسول. 1388. بررسی نگرش دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی دانشگاه تبریز نسبت به مفهوم دسترسی آزاد به متون علمی. فصلنامه کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی 47: 209-232.
  6. زوارقی، رسول. 1388. بررسی نگرش دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی دانشگاه تبریز نسبت به مفهوم دسترسی آزاد به متون علمی. فصلنامه کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی 47: 209-232.
  7. ستوده، هاجر. 1389. گذاری بر ضریب تأثیرگذاری مجله‌ها و دلایل ناکارآمدی آن در ارزیابی پژوهش در رشته‌های مختلف. رهیافت 147: 33-44.
  8. ستوده، هاجر. 1389. گذاری بر ضریب تأثیرگذاری مجله‌ها و دلایل ناکارآمدی آن در ارزیابی پژوهش در رشته‌های مختلف. رهیافت 147: 33-44.
  9. ستوده، هاجر، معصومه روایی، و مهدیه میرزابیگی. 1397. مقایسه فرصت‌های دگرسنجی و تحلیل استنادی در ارزیابی پژوهش. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات 1 (34): 113-138.
  10. ستوده، هاجر، معصومه روایی، و مهدیه میرزابیگی. 1397. مقایسه فرصت‌های دگرسنجی و تحلیل استنادی در ارزیابی پژوهش. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات 1 (34): 113-138.
  11. عبدخدا، محمدهیوا، محمدرضا علی‌بیگ، آغافاطمه حسینی، سامان راوند، مسعود محمدی، و جواد زارعی. 1392. بررسی میزان آشنایی و نگرش اعضای هیئت علمی نسبت به جنبش دسترسی آزاد به اطلاعات علمی در دانشگاه علوم پزشکی. مجله دانشکده پیراپزشکی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی تهران (پیاورد سلامت) 7 (5): 457-467.
  12. عبدخدا، محمدهیوا، محمدرضا علی‌بیگ، آغافاطمه حسینی، سامان راوند، مسعود محمدی، و جواد زارعی. 1392. بررسی میزان آشنایی و نگرش اعضای هیئت علمی نسبت به جنبش دسترسی آزاد به اطلاعات علمی در دانشگاه علوم پزشکی. مجله دانشکده پیراپزشکی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی تهران (پیاورد سلامت) 7 (5): 457-467.
  13. عرفان‌منش، محمدامین، الهه حسینی، و سحر حبیبی. 1397. تحلیل توییت مقاله‌های علمی در توییتر. فصلنامه مطالعات ملی کتابداری و سازماندهی اطلاعات 29 (3): 93-111.
  14. عرفان‌منش، محمدامین، الهه حسینی، و سحر حبیبی. 1397. تحلیل توییت مقاله‌های علمی در توییتر. فصلنامه مطالعات ملی کتابداری و سازماندهی اطلاعات 29 (3): 93-111.
  15. Bailey Jr, C. W. 2005. Open access bibliography: liberating scholarly literature with e-prints and open access journals. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
  16. Bailey Jr, C. W. 2005. Open access bibliography: liberating scholarly literature with e-prints and open access journals. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
  17. Balazs, J. A., & J. D. Velásquez. 2016. Opinion mining and information fusion: a survey. Information Fusion 27; 95-110. [DOI:10.1016/j.inffus.2015.06.002]
  18. Balazs, J. A., & J. D. Velásquez. 2016. Opinion mining and information fusion: a survey. Information Fusion 27; 95-110. [DOI:10.1016/j.inffus.2015.06.002]
  19. Beall, J. 2013. Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access. Learned Publishing 26 (2): 79-84. [DOI:10.1087/20130203]
  20. Beall, J. 2013. Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access. Learned Publishing 26 (2): 79-84. [DOI:10.1087/20130203]
  21. Bornmann L. 2014. Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics 8 (4): 895-903. [DOI:10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005]
  22. Bornmann L. 2014. Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics. Journal of Informetrics 8 (4): 895-903. [DOI:10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.005]
  23. Brody, T., H. Stamerjohanns, S. Harnad, Y. Gingras, F. Vallieres, & C. Oppenheim. 2004. The effect of Open Access on Citation Impact. Presented at National Policies on Open Access (OA) Provision for University Research Output: An International meeting. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~ha...ATAnew.pdf. Southampton, Southamtpon University
  24. Brody, T., H. Stamerjohanns, S. Harnad, Y. Gingras, F. Vallieres, & C. Oppenheim. 2004. The effect of Open Access on Citation Impact. Presented at National Policies on Open Access (OA) Provision for University Research Output: An International meeting. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~ha...ATAnew.pdf. Southampton, Southamtpon University
  25. Burgman, M., W. Fuwen, K. Esler, R. Akçakaya, M. McCarthy, C. Rondinini, ... & E. Game. 2019. Open access and academic imperialism. Conservation biology: the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 33 (1): 5. [DOI:10.1111/cobi.13248]
  26. Burgman, M., W. Fuwen, K. Esler, R. Akçakaya, M. McCarthy, C. Rondinini, ... & E. Game. 2019. Open access and academic imperialism. Conservation biology: the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 33 (1): 5. [DOI:10.1111/cobi.13248]
  27. Chan, G. R., & A. S. C Cheung. 2017. The transition toward open access: the University of Hong Kong experience. Library Management 38 (8/9): 488-496. [DOI:10.1108/LM-02-2017-0013]
  28. Chan, G. R., & A. S. C Cheung. 2017. The transition toward open access: the University of Hong Kong experience. Library Management 38 (8/9): 488-496. [DOI:10.1108/LM-02-2017-0013]
  29. Didegah, F., N. Mejlgaard, & M. P. Sørensen. 2018. Investigating the quality of interactions and public engagement around scientific papers on Twitter. Journal of Informetric 12 (3): 960-971. [DOI:10.1016/j.joi.2018.08.002]
  30. Didegah, F., N. Mejlgaard, & M. P. Sørensen. 2018. Investigating the quality of interactions and public engagement around scientific papers on Twitter. Journal of Informetric 12 (3): 960-971. [DOI:10.1016/j.joi.2018.08.002]
  31. Giachanou, A., & F. Crestani. 2016. Like it or not: A survey of twitter sentiment analysis methods. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 49 (2): 28. [DOI:10.1145/2938640]
  32. Giachanou, A., & F. Crestani. 2016. Like it or not: A survey of twitter sentiment analysis methods. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 49 (2): 28. [DOI:10.1145/2938640]
  33. Golder, S. A., D. M. Wilkinson, & B. A. Huberman. 2007. Rhythms of social interaction: Messaging within a massive online network. In Communities and technologies 2007 (pp. 41-66). London: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-84628-905-7_3]
  34. Golder, S. A., D. M. Wilkinson, & B. A. Huberman. 2007. Rhythms of social interaction: Messaging within a massive online network. In Communities and technologies 2007 (pp. 41-66). London: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-84628-905-7_3]
  35. Guardian. 2018. Hundreds of open access journals accept fake science paper. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paper. (accessed Nov. 15, 2013)
  36. Guardian. 2018. Hundreds of open access journals accept fake science paper. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paper. (accessed Nov. 15, 2013)
  37. Haustein, S. & R. Costas. 2015. Determining Twitter audiences: Geolocation and number of followers. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics15/haustein/ (accessed Nov. 1, 2017)
  38. Haustein, S. & R. Costas. 2015. Determining Twitter audiences: Geolocation and number of followers. Retrieved from http://altmetrics.org/altmetrics15/haustein/ (accessed Nov. 1, 2017)
  39. Hernández-Borges, A. A., R. Cabrera-Rodríguez, A. Montesdeoca-Melián, B. Martínez-Pineda, M. L. T. A. de Arcaya, & A. Jiménez-Sosa. 2006. Awareness and attitude of Spanish medical authors to open access publishing and the "author pays" model. Journal of the Medical Library Association 94 (4):449.
  40. Hernández-Borges, A. A., R. Cabrera-Rodríguez, A. Montesdeoca-Melián, B. Martínez-Pineda, M. L. T. A. de Arcaya, & A. Jiménez-Sosa. 2006. Awareness and attitude of Spanish medical authors to open access publishing and the "author pays" model. Journal of the Medical Library Association 94 (4):449.
  41. Jamali, H. R., D. Nicholas, & E. Herman. 2015. Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms. Research Evaluation 25 (1): 37-49. [DOI:10.1093/reseval/rvv032]
  42. Jamali, H. R., D. Nicholas, & E. Herman. 2015. Scholarly reputation in the digital age and the role of emerging platforms and mechanisms. Research Evaluation 25 (1): 37-49. [DOI:10.1093/reseval/rvv032]
  43. Kaba, A., & R. Said. 2015. Open access awareness, use, and perception: A case study of AAU faculty members. New Library World 116 (1/2): 94-103. [DOI:10.1108/NLW-05-2014-0053]
  44. Kaba, A., & R. Said. 2015. Open access awareness, use, and perception: A case study of AAU faculty members. New Library World 116 (1/2): 94-103. [DOI:10.1108/NLW-05-2014-0053]
  45. Kontopoulos, E., C. Berberidis, T. Dergiades, & N. Bassiliades. 2013. Ontology-based sentiment analysis of twitter posts. Expert systems with application, 40 (10): 4065-4074. [DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2013.01.001]
  46. Kontopoulos, E., C. Berberidis, T. Dergiades, & N. Bassiliades. 2013. Ontology-based sentiment analysis of twitter posts. Expert systems with application, 40 (10): 4065-4074. [DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2013.01.001]
  47. Kumar, A., & G. Garg. 2019. Sentiment analysis of multimodal twitter data. Multimedia Tools and Applications 78 (17): 24103-24119. [DOI:10.1007/s11042-019-7390-1]
  48. Kumar, A., & G. Garg. 2019. Sentiment analysis of multimodal twitter data. Multimedia Tools and Applications 78 (17): 24103-24119. [DOI:10.1007/s11042-019-7390-1]
  49. Mischo, W. H., & M. C. Schlembach. 2011. Open access issues and engineering faculty attitudes and practices. Journal of Library Administration 51 (5-6): 432-454. [DOI:10.1080/01930826.2011.589349]
  50. Mischo, W. H., & M. C. Schlembach. 2011. Open access issues and engineering faculty attitudes and practices. Journal of Library Administration 51 (5-6): 432-454. [DOI:10.1080/01930826.2011.589349]
  51. Moros, E. G., P. H. Halvorsen, & C. G. Orton. 2016. Open access journals benefit authors from more affluent institutions. Medical physics 43 (10): 5265-5267. [DOI:10.1118/1.4959548]
  52. Moros, E. G., P. H. Halvorsen, & C. G. Orton. 2016. Open access journals benefit authors from more affluent institutions. Medical physics 43 (10): 5265-5267. [DOI:10.1118/1.4959548]
  53. Narayan, B., E. J. Luca, B. Tiffen, A. England, M. Booth, & H.Boateng. 2018. Scholarly communication practices in humanities and social sciences: a study of researchers' attitudes and awareness of open access. Open Information Science 2 (1): 168-180. [DOI:10.1515/opis-2018-0013]
  54. Narayan, B., E. J. Luca, B. Tiffen, A. England, M. Booth, & H.Boateng. 2018. Scholarly communication practices in humanities and social sciences: a study of researchers' attitudes and awareness of open access. Open Information Science 2 (1): 168-180. [DOI:10.1515/opis-2018-0013]
  55. Narr, S., M. Hulfenhaus, & S. Albayrak. 2012. Language-independent twitter sentiment analysis. In: KDML workshop on knowledge discovery, data mining and machine learning 2012 (KDML-2012), Dortmund, Germany, 2012.
  56. Narr, S., M. Hulfenhaus, & S. Albayrak. 2012. Language-independent twitter sentiment analysis. In: KDML workshop on knowledge discovery, data mining and machine learning 2012 (KDML-2012), Dortmund, Germany, 2012.
  57. Obuh, A. O. 2013. Attitude towards the use of open access scholarly publications: the position of LIS lecturers in Southern Nigeria. The social sciences 8 (2): 153-159.
  58. Obuh, A. O. 2013. Attitude towards the use of open access scholarly publications: the position of LIS lecturers in Southern Nigeria. The social sciences 8 (2): 153-159.
  59. Pershad, Y., P. T. Hangge, H. Albadawi, & R. Oklu. 2018. Social medicine: Twitter in healthcare. Journal of clinical medicine 7 (6): 121. [DOI:10.3390/jcm7060121]
  60. Pershad, Y., P. T. Hangge, H. Albadawi, & R. Oklu. 2018. Social medicine: Twitter in healthcare. Journal of clinical medicine 7 (6): 121. [DOI:10.3390/jcm7060121]
  61. Robinson-Garcia, N., T. N. van Leeuwen, & I. Rafols. 2018. Using altmetrics for contextualised mapping of societal impact: From hits to networks. Science and Public Policy 45 (6): 815-826. [DOI:10.1093/scipol/scy024]
  62. Robinson-Garcia, N., T. N. van Leeuwen, & I. Rafols. 2018. Using altmetrics for contextualised mapping of societal impact: From hits to networks. Science and Public Policy 45 (6): 815-826. [DOI:10.1093/scipol/scy024]
  63. Rodriguez, J. E. 2014. Awareness and attitudes about open access publishing: a glance at generational differences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 40 (6): 604-610. [DOI:10.1016/j.acalib.2014.07.013]
  64. Rodriguez, J. E. 2014. Awareness and attitudes about open access publishing: a glance at generational differences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 40 (6): 604-610. [DOI:10.1016/j.acalib.2014.07.013]
  65. Saif, H., Y. He, & H. Alani. 2012. Semantic sentiment analysis of twitter. In International semantic web conference (pp. 508-524). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-35176-1_32]
  66. Saif, H., Y. He, & H. Alani. 2012. Semantic sentiment analysis of twitter. In International semantic web conference (pp. 508-524). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-35176-1_32]
  67. Singson, M., M. G. Joy, S. Thiyagarajan, & V. Dkhar. 2015. Perceptions of open access publishing by Faculty at Pondicherry University: A survey. International Information & Library Review 47 (1-2): 1-10. [DOI:10.1080/10572317.2015.1021625]
  68. Singson, M., M. G. Joy, S. Thiyagarajan, & V. Dkhar. 2015. Perceptions of open access publishing by Faculty at Pondicherry University: A survey. International Information & Library Review 47 (1-2): 1-10. [DOI:10.1080/10572317.2015.1021625]
  69. Sotudeh, H. 2020. Does open access citation advantage depend on paper topics? Journal of Information Science 46 (5): 696-709. [DOI:10.1177/0165551519865489]
  70. Sotudeh, H. 2020. Does open access citation advantage depend on paper topics? Journal of Information Science 46 (5): 696-709. [DOI:10.1177/0165551519865489]
  71. _____, & Z. Ghasempour. 2018. The world's approach toward publishing in Springer and Elsevier's APC-funded open access journals. College & Research Libraries 79 (2): 257. [DOI:10.5860/crl.79.2.257]
  72. _____, & Z. Ghasempour. 2018. The world's approach toward publishing in Springer and Elsevier's APC-funded open access journals. College & Research Libraries 79 (2): 257. [DOI:10.5860/crl.79.2.257]
  73. Swan, A., & S. Brown. 2004. Authors and open access publishing. Learned publishing 17 (3): 219-224. [DOI:10.1087/095315104323159649]
  74. Swan, A., & S. Brown. 2004. Authors and open access publishing. Learned publishing 17 (3): 219-224. [DOI:10.1087/095315104323159649]
  75. Tennant, J. P., F. Waldner, D. C. Jacques, P. Masuzzo, L. B. Collister, & C. H. Hartgerink. 2016. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research 5: 632. [DOI:10.12688/f1000research.8460.1]
  76. Tennant, J. P., F. Waldner, D. C. Jacques, P. Masuzzo, L. B. Collister, & C. H. Hartgerink. 2016. The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research 5: 632. [DOI:10.12688/f1000research.8460.1]
  77. Tenopir, C., E. D. Dalton, L. Christian, M. K. Jones, M. McCabe, M. Smith, & A. Fish. 2017. Imagining a gold open access future: attitudes, behaviors, and funding scenarios among authors of academic scholarship. College & Research Libraries 78 (6): 1-21. [DOI:10.5860/crl.78.6.824]
  78. Tenopir, C., E. D. Dalton, L. Christian, M. K. Jones, M. McCabe, M. Smith, & A. Fish. 2017. Imagining a gold open access future: attitudes, behaviors, and funding scenarios among authors of academic scholarship. College & Research Libraries 78 (6): 1-21. [DOI:10.5860/crl.78.6.824]
  79. Thelwall, M., & K. Buckley. 2013. Topic-based sentiment analysis for the social web: The role of mood and issue‐related words. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (8): 1608-1617. [DOI:10.1002/asi.22872]
  80. Thelwall, M., & K. Buckley. 2013. Topic-based sentiment analysis for the social web: The role of mood and issue‐related words. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (8): 1608-1617. [DOI:10.1002/asi.22872]
  81. _____, & G. Paltoglou. 2011. Sentiment in Twitter events. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62 (2): 406-418. [DOI:10.1002/asi.21462]
  82. _____, & G. Paltoglou. 2011. Sentiment in Twitter events. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62 (2): 406-418. [DOI:10.1002/asi.21462]
  83. _____, D. Cai, & A. Kappas. 2010. Sentiment strength detection in short informal text. Journal of the American society for information science and technology 61 (12): 2544-2558 [DOI:10.1002/asi.21416]
  84. _____, D. Cai, & A. Kappas. 2010. Sentiment strength detection in short informal text. Journal of the American society for information science and technology 61 (12): 2544-2558 [DOI:10.1002/asi.21416]
  85. Togia, A., & S. Korobili. 2014. Attitudes towards open access: A meta-synthesis of the empirical literature. Information Services & Use 34 (3-4): 221-231. [DOI:10.3233/ISU-140742]
  86. Togia, A., & S. Korobili. 2014. Attitudes towards open access: A meta-synthesis of the empirical literature. Information Services & Use 34 (3-4): 221-231. [DOI:10.3233/ISU-140742]
  87. Wang, X., F. Wei, X. Liu, M. Zhou, & M. Zhang. 2011. Topic sentiment analysis in twitter: a graph-based hashtag sentiment classification approach. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management (pp. 1031-1040). ACM. Glasgow, Scotland, UK. [DOI:10.1145/2063576.2063726]
  88. Wang, X., F. Wei, X. Liu, M. Zhou, & M. Zhang. 2011. Topic sentiment analysis in twitter: a graph-based hashtag sentiment classification approach. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management (pp. 1031-1040). ACM. Glasgow, Scotland, UK. [DOI:10.1145/2063576.2063726]
  89. Ware, M., & M. Mabe. 2015. The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Netherlands: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.
  90. Ware, M., & M. Mabe. 2015. The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Netherlands: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.
  91. Yang, Z. Y., & Y. Li. 2015. University faculty awareness and attitudes towards open access publishing and the institutional repository: A case study. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 3 (1): eP1210. [DOI:10.7710/2162-3309.1210]
  92. Yang, Z. Y., & Y. Li. 2015. University faculty awareness and attitudes towards open access publishing and the institutional repository: A case study. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 3 (1): eP1210. [DOI:10.7710/2162-3309.1210]

  • Receive Date 10 December 2022