X'ing submitted docs: Dos and Don'ts
jvwong opened this issue · 1 comments
Description
Improvements can be made to the structure and content of newly submitted documents shared to Twitter. Ideally, we would produce more compelling content on a per-document basis ('single-user mode') by leveraging the unique and valuable information only we have access to via Biofactoid. Ultimately, we'd like to achieve some positive feedback: increasing the chances of views, re-tweets, indexing (Google) prompts others to contribute.
Some Tweet "Dos and Don'ts" to use as a guide:
Dos
- Tag
- With some prioritization and limits (number)
- Authors with unambiguous account names
- sourced from ORCID (#1017)
- Institutions, labs
- Display a compelling image
- Hashtag
- topics that are unambiguous, popular and useful
- Text
- Narrative
- Summary
- Links
- Directly to the paper
- via ID that can be normalized
- Directly to the paper
Don'ts
- Split Tweet content into multiple posts e.g. thread
- Tag/Hashtag
- Everything and everyone possible, as this detracts from content and looks like spam
Specification
To illustrate how we might apply these rules, I'll use a paper from eLife for which a hand-crafted Tweet was created. This paper is rather broad in scope (not just about an interaction), contains complex details, a broad range of experimental techniques and subtle conclusions.
- Arian Mansur et al. Dynamic regulation of inter-organelle communication by ubiquitylation controls skeletal muscle development and disease onset. July 11, 2023. 10.7554/eLife.81966
- Biofactoid document
Mockup
The mockup below is from a 'Features' series whose intention was to highlight the official recommendation by eLife in June.
Details
Some breakdown of the above example:
- Tag
- journal directly (@elife) - could be automated?
- Senior author (@@LoweLabMSKCC) - manual
- Hastag
- main disease (#hepatocellular)
- Link
- DOI, biofactoid doc in same tweet
- Key image
- figure - manual