Social Media Analysis of High-Impact Information and Communication Journals: Adoption, Use, and Content Curation

Abstract

The use of social media to disseminate academic content is increasing, particularly in scientific journals. This study has the following two main objectives: first, exploring the use of social media by high-impact academic journals in two different SJR categories (Library and Information Sciences and Communication), and second, analyzing content curation carried out by the world’s most influential journals in both areas. The research methodology is descriptive with a quantitative approach regarding the items studied. The study finds that COM journals have a stronger social media presence than LIS journals, and X dominates in both categories and regions as the top social network, with significant influence as the only platform. On the other hand, content curation was found to a high degree in both areas, especially in the LIS area, with 93% vs. 80% in COM. The study highlights that both COM and LIS journals primarily focus on promoting recent articles, with COM diversifying content more than LIS. In terms of the content curation techniques used in both areas, the majority are abstracting and summarizing.

1. Introduction

The rise of Web 2.0 has driven a technological revolution, creating a highly connected world and an information-driven economy (Castells, 2004). Social media, the most notable innovation of Web 2.0, have significantly impacted traditional communication and reshaped how news is consumed and shared (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009; Campos Freire, 2008). These platforms have introduced bidirectional communication, enabling greater interaction between media and audiences (Lara Padilla, 2008).

The advent of social media has transformed scientific communication, leveraging Web 2.0 tools (Codina, 2009) and evolving from a linear process to a multifaceted interaction involving both scientists and society (Bucchi & Trench, 2021; Lewenstein, 2022). Platforms like X and Facebook facilitate public science engagement, creating channels beyond peer communication (Bucchi & Trench, 2008). These tools are used by journals, universities, and researchers to disseminate findings and promote research, enhancing real-time connectivity (Hunter, 2020; Collins et al., 2016), while also enabling niche community dialogs across scientific fields (Torres-Salinas et al., 2024).

The digital presence and communication strategies of scientific journals and publishers have become frequent subjects of study, revealing variations across disciplines. In Medicine, journals primarily target researchers (Erskine & Hendricks, 2021), whereas Humanities and Social Sciences focus on engaging the public through shared web content (Raamkumar et al., 2018). This shift has led to the adoption of audiovisual tools, such as podcasts and infographics, which expand the audience beyond traditional communication methods (Fox et al., 2021). Social media, particularly X and Facebook, are increasingly used by journals to enhance visibility and impact, although their influence on scientific recognition remains limited (Ortega, 2017; Özkent, 2022). High-impact journals tend to achieve broader dissemination, but the adoption of social media strategies varies widely, with only a minority of journals maintaining an active presence (Nishikawa-Pacher, 2023; Zheng et al., 2019). Despite positive perceptions among editors (Arcila-Calderón et al., 2019), differences persist in how journals across disciplines utilize these platforms, with medical journals receiving particular attention in research (Erskine & Hendricks, 2021).

On the other hand, the publications of scientific journals on social media platforms can also be observed and analyzed from the perspective of content curation. This concept, understood as the process of selecting existing digital content to share with a specific audience or community, was considered by some authors as a fundamental activity in the digital communication ecosystem (Thorson & Wells, 2016; Bruns, 2018). The practice of content curation can be applied across various disciplines, such as Communication, Information Science, or Education, with social media being an essential publishing channel (Guallar et al., 2020).

Social media curation is carried out by several agents, ranging from media outlets to all kinds of organizations and citizens, thus including entities that produce digital content, such as scientific journals. Only a few studies have investigated the social network posts of scientific journals from the perspective of content curation, such as that of Artigas and Guallar (2022) for Ibero-American Communication journals.

Additionally, previous research has shown that the adoption and use of social networks and communication strategies by academic journals is inconsistent and varies across fields of knowledge. While there is a study exploring the use of social media based on the type of publisher (Cascón-Katchadourian et al., 2024) where one of the relevant findings is that scientific journals from smaller publishers adopt and use social networks more actively, it does not address the crucial aspect of content curation—how journals select, structure, and present information to engage their audiences effectively. Moreover, no studies have specifically analyzed these strategies in relation to a journal’s scientific impact, nor have they compared the fields of Communication and Library and Information Science in terms of content curation, thematic focus, applied techniques, or the integration of content across platforms. Such an investigation would offer valuable insights into the information professionals, editors, and journal managers responsible for designing and managing social media strategies.

For this study, Communication (hereafter, COM) and Library and Information Science (hereafter, LIS) were chosen as focal disciplines, with the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) used as the primary metric. This decision was informed by the thematic proximity of these fields within the broader Social Sciences domain and the existing body of knowledge surrounding their practices. Their similarity is further highlighted by the overlap of six journals that cater to both disciplines: Profesional de la Información, Information, Communication & Society, Big Data & Society, Journal of Health Communication, Learned Publishing, and Publications.

Although analyses of high-impact journals are common, they are typically grounded in metrics like the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and Journal Citation Reports (JCRs) using data from Web of Science (WoS) (Haustein, 2019). In contrast, leveraging SJR metrics derived from Scopus data offers a novel approach, providing fresh perspectives on journal strategies and their impact.

The research questions (RQs) set for this work are as follows:

RQ 1:

What is the level of adoption and use of social media, and which social platforms prevail in high-impact scientific journals in LIS and COM categories according to SJR?

RQ 2:

What is the level of implementation of content curation in the social media posts of these journals?

RQ 3:

What are the main themes of these social media curation posts?

RQ 4:

What content curation techniques are employed in these posts?

RQ 5:

How is curated content integrated into the tweet?

To answer these questions, this study has two main objectives. The first objective is to examine the utilization of social media by high-impact academic journals within two distinct SJR categories: LIS and COM. This overarching objective is addressed through the following specific aims:

-

To identify the social media profiles of Q1 journals in LIS and COM categories on platforms such as X, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

-

To analyze how these journals engage with and leverage the social media platforms where they are active.

-

To compare the similarities and differences between the two fields, highlighting their distinctive characteristics and assessing whether Communication journals demonstrate superior content dissemination, as hypothesized in this study.

The second objective is to analyze the characteristics of content curation carried out by the world’s most influential journals in COM and LIS.

This objective is broken down into the following specific objectives:

-

Study the implementation of content curation on the social media of these journals.

-

Understand the curation themes of the publications on social media.

-

Learn the curation techniques in their publications on social media.

-

Examine the integration of the curated content into tweets and the use of hashtags or mentions in these profiles.

-

Study the similarities and differences between the two areas of curation.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology addresses the outlined research objectives by adhering to the classifications proposed by Ferran-Ferrer et al. (2017), adopting a descriptive approach combined with quantitative analysis to examine the presence of the studied elements.

The research material consists of data extracted from the Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) indicator, focusing on journals indexed within the Scopus scientific database. Additionally, information was gathered from the official websites of the studied journals and their profiles on various social media platforms.

To collect the SJR data, the journal rankings tool was consulted in March 2024. An initial filter for Social Sciences was applied, followed by two subsequent filters for the selected categories—Communication (COM) and Library and Information Science (LIS)—using the parameters “all regions/countries”, “Journals”, and the year 2022. These categories were selected due to their alignment with the researchers’ fields of study. Moreover, their close relationship facilitates comparative analysis. The extracted data were restricted to journals within the top quartile (Q1), representing the highest impact, to determine whether high-impact journals demonstrate greater dissemination, as suggested by Cao et al. (2023).

Subsequently, between March and April 2024, open social media profiles of Q1 journals in COM and LIS were identified. Searches were conducted via the official websites of the journals, as well as through Google and the search functionalities of the targeted social media platforms: X, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and YouTube.

The analysis documented the following scenarios:

• The journal maintains one or more active social media profiles. This was coded as “Yes”, with an additional column specifying the platform(s). Example: Yes, Facebook.
• The journal does not have its own social media profile, but its publisher does. This was coded as “No, from the publisher”.
• Neither the journal nor its publisher has a social media profile. This was coded as “No”.
• The journal has a social media profile, but it remained inactive throughout 2023. This was coded as “Yes”, with the platform name and the descriptor “inactive”. Example: Yes (inactive profile).
• The journal has an open social media profile but no content. It is unclear whether the profile has never contained posts or if previous posts were deleted. This was coded as “Yes, without content”.

Finally, data on the publishers of the journals—sourced from the downloaded SJR database—was cross-referenced with information provided on the official websites of the journals. Any discrepancies or updates were duly recorded.

Although the selected journals exhibit varying publication frequencies (quarterly, semi-annual, annual, etc.), the same time frame was analyzed for all of them: the entirety of 2023. Any journal without publications during this year, even if it has publications before or after, is considered inactive for the purposes of this study.

Next, the presence of content curation in social media posts by COM and LIS journals on their active X profiles was analyzed based on general guidelines from specialized literature on curation (e.g., Guallar et al., 2022b). The platform X was selected because it is the most widely used and predominant platform among journals in both areas.

It is essential to clarify the definition of curated content in this study: a post is considered curated when it provides access—via a hyperlink or other means (e.g., embedded content from a social media platform)—to the original digital content being referenced. This aligns with what recent research (Guallar & López-Borrull, 2022, p. 6) identifies as a high level of curation. Posts that do not offer access to prior digital content (medium and low levels of curation) are therefore not classified as curated in this article.

Subsequently, the themes and techniques employed in curated posts, as well as the methods of integrating curated content, were analyzed (

Table 1. Studied categories and indicators.

Curation Themes	Curation Techniques	Integration of Curated Content
Call for Papers Current Vol. Diffusion Current Vol. Paper External Content Other Own Activities Previous Vol. Paper	Abstracting Comenting Quoting Retitling Summarizing	Content from another social media Link to own social media Web hyperlink Hashtags Mentions

). For this part of the study, which focuses more on the quality of content curation, key references included studies by Deshpande (2013, 2015), Cui and Liu (2017), Guallar and Traver (2020), Artigas and Guallar (2022), Guallar et al. (2022b), and Gil and Guallar (2023). Building on this work, the following categorization of themes, techniques, and integration systems for curated content were used in this study.

Seven categories were analyzed for the themes of the posts: Current Volume Papers (those published in 2023); Previous Volumes Papers (published before 2023); Current Volume Diffusion (posts referring to the promotion of an entire volume or issue of the journal from 2023, not individual articles); Call For Papers (CFP); Own Activities; External Content; and Other (not included in the previous categories, such as announcements of future issues, award calls, journal rankings, or acknowledgments to authors and editors).

To analyze curation techniques, the following categories were considered, ordered from least to most added value in the curation process: abstracting, which involves extracting the original content with minimal changes, typically limited to the title; retitling, which involves replacing the original title of the curated content with a new one; summarizing, which entails crafting descriptive or informative text about the curated content; commenting, which adds a personal opinion, evaluative remark, or unique perspective on the curated content; and quoting, which includes a relevant, verbatim excerpt from the curated content.

Finally, for the integration of curated content, the following categories were analyzed: web hyperlinks, where the post includes a link to web-based content; links to the same social platform (X, in this case), where the post links to another post on X; and links to another social platform, where the post redirects to content published on another social platform (e.g., Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn). Additionally, two specific integration systems available on X were analyzed: hashtags (#) and mentions (@) included in the posts.

The resulting database used for this research can be accessed at the following link: [https://dataverse.csuc.cat/privateurl.xhtml?token=d46b1487-1c46-40c3-bdba-b10f7a0a2166] accessed on 10 January 2025.

3. Results

3.1. Adoption and Use of Social Media by COM and LIS Journals in SJR Q1

Firstly, when analyzing Communication journals (refer to

Table 2. Social media presence from COM and LIS journals Q1 (SJR).

SJR Area	Total Journals	Active Own Profiles SSMM 2		Journals With Editorial Profiles		All Inactive Profiles		Some Inactive Profiles		No Profiles
	AF 1	AF	%	AF	%	AF	%	AF	%	AF	%
COM	118	65	55.08%	43	36.44%	8	6.77%	19	11.01%	2	1.69%
LIS	64	24	37.50%	34	53.12%	2	3.12%	9	7.62%	4	3.38%
SJR Area		SSMM Active Profiles		Just One Platform		Two or More Platforms		X Active
		AF		AF	%	AF	%	AF	%
COM		65		43	66.15%	22	33.84%	58	89.23%
LIS		24		19	79.16%	5	20.83%	23	95.83%

¹ AF: absolute frequency. ² SSMM: social media.

), data from the Scopus database reveal that among the 118 journals ranked in the top (Q1) quartile based on the SJR indicator, slightly over half (65 journals, 55.08%) maintain active profiles on social media platforms. Contrarily, eight journals (6.77%) have inactive social media profiles. These include the following: Mass Communication and Society, Chinese Journal of Communication, Journalism & Communication Monographs, Convergence, Communication and the Public, Written Communication, Communication Reports, and Journal of Family Communication. There is no academic journal without content on all its social media profiles. However, there are four journals with at least one open profile which has never published any content (Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, Chinese Journal of Communication, Poetics, and Review of Communication Research). In three of these cases, the inactive profile is on LinkedIn. Interestingly, 61.8% of the journals (73) have an open profile on at least 1 social media platform under any of the following statuses: active (65), inactive (8), or without content (3, always accompanied by other active or inactive profiles from the same journal).

Communication journals demonstrate a clear preference for focusing on one or two active social media platforms. The majority utilize a single platform (43 journals, 66.15%), while a notable portion combines two platforms (22 journals, 33.84%). Only five journals actively engage with three or more platforms: Comunicar, Profesional de la Información, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, Feminist Media Studies, and Journal of Media Psychology. Notably, the first three are based in Spain.

The situation is markedly different in the Library and Information Science (LIS) field. Among the 64 journals in the LIS area ranked in the top Q1 quartile of SJR, the majority (40 journals, 62.5%) lack their own open profiles on any social media platform. Only about one-third (24 journals, 37.50%) maintain their own active social media profiles, while two journals (Scientometrics and Communications in Information Literacy) have open but inactive profiles at the time of the study. No journals with one or more profiles have ever published any content. Therefore, 26 journals have their own social media profile, whether active (24), inactive (2), or without content. In other words, 40.62% of the journals have their own profile on at least one social media platform.

The majority of LIS journals, similar to the Communication journals, rely on a single social media platform (19 journals, 79.16%). Additionally, three journals utilize a combination of two platforms, while two journals engage with three or more platforms. The latter group includes the Spanish journal Profesional de la Información and the North American journal College and Research Libraries.

It is also noteworthy that 36.44% (43 journals) of COM journals and 53.12% (34 journals) of LIS journals only have social media profiles managed by their publishers, meaning they lack their own profiles but their publishers maintain one. Similarly, two COM journals (1.69%) and four LIS journals (3.38%) have neither their own profiles nor those of their publishers.

The chi-square test of independence was then performed considering that in COM there are 65 active journals and 53 inactive ones and that in LIS there are 24 active journals and 40 inactive ones. Using Yates’ continuity correction to avoid a type II error (accepting H0 when it is an incorrect decision), a p-value of 0.03479 was obtained. Therefore, with a confidence level of 96.521%, we can say that there is a relationship between the journal category (COM and LIS) and the use or non-use of social media. In particular, we can confidently say that COM journals make greater use of social networks than LIS, which supports our hypothesis that COM journals have a greater interest in advertising on social media.

3.2. Social Platforms Used by SJR Q1 Communication and LIS Scientific Journals

Five social media platforms were analyzed for their use by scientific journals: X, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and YouTube. The distribution of the 65 Communication (COM) journals and 24 Library and Information Science (LIS) journals with a moderate active presence on their social media profiles across these platforms is shown in Figure 1.

As observed, the 24 journals in the LIS field with active profiles maintain a total of 33 social media profiles, with more than two-thirds (69%) having profiles on X. In the COM field, the 65 journals with active social media profiles have created a total of 93 profiles, with nearly two-thirds (62%) on X.

Among the five platforms analyzed, X emerges as the most widely utilized, significantly surpassing the others. It is employed by 89.23% of COM journals and 95.83% of LIS journals. Notably, X is the sole platform for a substantial number of journals: 37 from COM (56.92%) and 10 from LIS (75%). Furthermore, a notable pattern of the combined use of X and Facebook is observed, with 5 LIS journals (20.83%) and 15 COM journals (23.07%) leveraging both platforms. These figures also include journals that utilize X, Facebook, and additional social media platforms, rather than these two exclusively.

Although X is used at a higher percentage within LIS than COM among journals with an active profile, it is worth noting that this is not the case when considering the total number of journals (both active and inactive). In the COM category, there are 58 journals active on X and 60 inactive on this social network, whereas in the LIS category, there are 23 active and 41 inactive journals on X.

After performing the chi-square test of independence using Yates’ continuity correction, a p-value of 0.1195 was obtained. This indicates that, with a confidence level of 88.05%, we can state that there is a relationship between the type of journal (COM and LIS) and the use or non-use of X. Specifically, we can assert with confidence that COM journals make greater use of X than LIS journals.

Facebook is the second most utilized platform, with 21 COM journals and 5 LIS journals using it. Interestingly, four COM journals rely exclusively on Facebook. Additionally, a shared Facebook profile is maintained by Digital Journalism, Journalism Practice, and Journalism Studies.

In contrast, the other platforms—LinkedIn, Instagram, and YouTube—are less frequently used by the journals studied, a trend that stands in contrast to their prominence in other professional sectors outside academia. Among these three social media platforms, LinkedIn is the most used, with 11 journals. In the COM field, only the Journal of Advertising exclusively uses LinkedIn, while the other 10 journals that also use LinkedIn do so alongside other social media platforms. Instagram and YouTube are always used in combination.

In the LIS field, only the Journal of Information Technology uses LinkedIn exclusively, while the other two journals that also use LinkedIn do so with other platforms. Instagram only appears in journals with four profiles (College and Research Libraries and Profesional de la Informacion), and YouTube does not appear as an active profile in any LIS journal.

It is noteworthy that in COM, out of the 20 inactive profiles detected, both X and Facebook have 9 inactive profiles each, with the remaining 2 belonging to YouTube. In LIS, of the 10 inactive profiles, 5 are from Facebook and 3 are from YouTube. As for profiles that are open but have never been populated with content, there are a total of 6 across both fields, with LinkedIn having the most profiles, accounting for 4.

3.3. Content Curation in Journals’ X Profiles

There are 58 journals in the COM area and 23 in the LIS area with an active profile on X (

Table 3. Total number of posts by journals, number and percentage of curated posts, and average number of total and curated posts published per journal within each thematic area.

SJR Area	Journals	Posts	Curation Posts	Curation % of Total Posts	Journal Post and Curation Post Average
COM	58	4365	3509	80.38%	75.25	60.50
LIS	23	2262	2126	93.98%	98.30	92.40

). Among these, two COM journals, Journal of Business and Technical Communication and Social Semiotics, do not publish posts with curated content. Therefore, when analyzing the proportion of curated content posts relative to the total number of posts, all 58 COM journals are considered. However, when examining the themes, techniques, and integration of curated content, only 56 journals are included, excluding the 2 that do not curate content in their publications.

It should also be noted, once again, that six journals fall into both thematic categories: Big Data and Society, Information, Communication and Society, Journal of Health Communication, Profesional de la Información, Learned Publishing, and Publications.

3.3.1. Presence of Content Curation

A high use of content curation is observed in the publications of COM journals on X (Table 3). Specifically, 3509 out of the 4365 analyzed posts include curated content (80.38%). Moreover, 17% of the journals curate content in all their posts, and 47% curate content in more than 90% of their posts. Conversely, only 10% of the journals have less than 50% curated content, and two journals have no curated content at all, despite being active. It is worth noting, however, that these 2 journals published only 10 and 11 posts, respectively, throughout 2023.

Similarly, the presence of curation in the posts of LIS journals on X is also very high. Out of a total of 2262 analyzed posts, 2126 contain curated content (93.98%). Additionally, 43% of the journals curate content in all their posts, and 70% curate content in more than 90% of their posts. On the other hand, only 4% of the journals have less than 50% curated content, and there are no journals without curated content.

When comparing the two areas, it was found that although the percentage of curated posts is high in both, it is significantly higher in LIS (93.98%) than in COM (80.38%). This difference is mainly due to two factors: in the LIS area, there are no journals that do not engage in curation, whereas in COM, there are two; and 43% of LIS journals have 100% of their content curated, compared to only 17% of COM journals.

In terms of the number of posts published, LIS journals published more total posts per journal and more curated posts per journal than COM journals in 2023. Specifically, LIS journals averaged 98.3 posts per journal, with 92.40 curated posts, compared to COM journals, which averaged 75.25 total posts and 60.5 curated posts per journal. Notably, the journal that publishes the highest number of curated posts is Big Data and Society, which is present in both areas.

3.3.2. Themes of Curation Posts

COM Journals

In the thematic categories of COM journals’ social media content (

Table 4. Themes of curation posts.

Curation Themes	COM Posts	% of Total Posts	LIS Posts	% of Total Posts
CFP	171	4.87%	43	2.02%
Current Vol. Diffusion	302	8.60%	59	2.77%
Current Vol. Papers	2280	64.97%	1523	71.63%
External Content	82	2.33%	50	2.35%
Other	121	3.44%	2	0.09%
Own Activities	146	4.26%	115	5.40%
Previous Vol. Papers	407	11.59%	334	15.71%

), the predominant theme is Current Volume Papers, which accounts for 64.97% of the curated posts analyzed. This is significantly higher than the second most frequent theme, Previous Volume Papers, which represents 11.59%. These are followed by Current Volume Difussion (8.6%), with the remaining thematic categories each accounting for less than 5%: Call for Papers (4.87%), Own Activities (4.16%), Other (3.44%), and External Content (2.33%).

Current Volume Papers is the dominant theme in 38 of the 56 journal profiles (in one case tied with Previous Volume Papers), appearing on average in 72.07% of posts, equivalent to nearly three out of every four curated posts. Furthermore, in three journals (Social Media and Society, Management Communication Quarterly, and Crime, Media, Culture), this is the sole theme of their posts.

Previous Volume Papers, the second most frequent theme, dominates in six journals with an average share of 55.09%. One journal, Public Culture, exclusively features this theme in its posts. Current Volume Diffusion is the primary theme in four journals (Media and Communication, Language and Intercultural Communication, African Journalism Studies, and Public Relations Inquiry), with a high average of 80.38% in these cases. However, exceptions to this are Media and Communication that publishes very few posts (between 5 and 10 annually), and African Journalism Studies, which solely features this theme.

The remaining themes (Call for Papers, Own Activities, External Content, and Other) are minor. Journals where these themes dominate tend to publish very few posts annually (1 to 15 curated posts). Moreover, in journals where Own Activities and External Content dominate, their averages are low, as these journals curate a variety of themes in their profiles.

Regarding thematic diversity, no journal curates content across all thematic categories. However, 12 journals curate all but 1 theme, demonstrating strong performance in this respect. On average, COM journals curate content from 3.71 out of the 7 established categories, reflecting a medium level of thematic variety.

LIS Journals

In LIS journals, the dominant theme is also Current Volume Papers, comprising 71.63% of the curated posts analyzed. This far exceeds the next most frequent theme, Previous Volume Papers (15.71%). The remaining themes follow at a considerable distance: Own Activities (5.4%), Current Volume Dissemination (2.77%), External Content (2.35%), Call for Papers (2.02%), and Other (0.09%).

Current Volume Papers is the leading theme in 15 of the 23 journals, appearing on average in 80.56% of their posts. In three journals (Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, and Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association), this is the sole theme of their posts.

Previous Volume Papers is the dominant theme in four journals (Quantitative Science Studies, Health Information and Libraries Journal, Journal of the Medical Library Association, and New Review of Academic Librarianship), with an average share of 58.24%. In third place, Own Activities is present in 12 of the 23 journals, with percentages ranging from 2.40% (Journal of Cheminformatics) to 33.33% (Reference Librarian). However, this theme is not dominant in any journal.

The remaining themes (Call for Papers, Current Volume Dissemination, External Content, and Other) are minor. Journals where these themes dominate (or tie) include Scientific Data, Quantitative Science Studies, Journal of Health Communication, Digital Library Perspectives, and Reference Librarian. These journals publish very few curated posts annually (between 1 and 21).

Regarding thematic diversity, no LIS journal curates content across all categories. However, two journals (College and Research Libraries and Publications) curate content from all but one category, reflecting high thematic diversity. On average, LIS journals curate content from 3.43 categories, slightly below the medium level of thematic variety observed in COM journals.

Comparison Between Areas

Both areas exhibit similar behavioral patterns in their thematic categories, with some differences. Current Volume Papers and Previous Volume Papers are the predominant themes in both areas, particularly the former, which is even more prominent in LIS (87.34% of posts) than in COM (76.56%). These two themes dominate in a higher percentage of LIS journals (19 of 23, or 82.6%) compared to COM journals (44 of 56, or 78.5%), which influences the slightly higher average thematic diversity in COM (3.71 vs. 3.43). Additionally, COM journals place greater emphasis on Current Volume Diffusion, Call for Papers, and Other (ranked third, fourth, and sixth, respectively), while LIS journals prioritize Own Activities and External Content (ranked third and fourth).

3.3.3. Content Curation Techniques

Regarding curation techniques, it is important to note that a single post on X can employ one technique or combine two. For instance, a post might summarize the results of a scientific article published by the journal and also comment on those results. This applies to all techniques: abstracting, retitling, summarizing, commenting, and quoting. This study identifies all techniques used in each post, meaning a single post may include two distinct techniques. Consequently, as the percentages for each technique are calculated relative to the total number of curated posts, the sum of all technique usage percentages exceeds 100%.

COM Journals

As observed in

Table 5. Content curation techniques.

Curation Techniques	COM Posts	% of Total Posts	LIS Posts	% of Total Posts
Abstracting	1587	45.22%	1448	68.10%
Commenting	571	16.27%	122	5.73%
Quoting	315	8.97%	277	13.02%
Retitling	80	2.27%	6	0.28%
Summarizing	1856	52.89%	787	37.01%

, the active X profiles of COM journals use the summarizing technique in 52.89% of their posts, either alone or combined with another technique. In second place, abstracting is used in 45.22% of posts, just seven points behind. These two techniques are clearly the most frequently employed, as reflected in the data: six journals use abstracting and four use summarizing in 100% of their posts. Additionally, summarizing is the dominant technique in 27 journals, while abstracting dominates in 19 journals.

The ranking of technique usage in COM journals, from most to least frequent, is as follows: summarizing, abstracting, commenting, quoting, and retitling (Table 5). There is only a partial correlation between the frequency of technique use and the perceived difficulty of execution (Deshpande, 2013; Guallar et al., 2020), as evidenced by the low use of retitling, which is not particularly difficult to implement. With the exception of this case, the other techniques seem to follow a pattern where simpler techniques are used more frequently.

It is also evident that journals tend to follow specific posting patterns on X. In 42 of the 56 journals, the dominant technique appears in more than 70% of posts. In eight journals, two techniques surpass this 70% threshold, indicating that these journals’ posting patterns include a combination of two techniques. In some cases, both techniques are present in all posts, as in the cases of Management Communication Quarterly and Social Media and Society. In most cases, the combination occurs in more than 85% of posts.

Finally, it is worth noting that two journals in this area demonstrate exemplary performance by utilizing all possible techniques: Big Data and Society and Communication Monographs. Additionally, 12 journals employ all but 1 technique, which also indicates strong performance. In all but one case, the techniques preventing a perfect score are quoting and retitling. On average, COM journals demonstrate a diversity of 2.71 out of 5 possible techniques, a result slightly above average.

LIS Journals

The active X profiles of LIS journals predominantly use the abstracting technique in 68.10% of their posts, either alone or combined with another technique. This means more than two out of three posts employ this technique. In second place, but over 30 percentage points lower, summarizing appears in 37.01% of posts, or slightly more than one out of three. Once again, these two techniques are the most frequently used, as reflected in the data: three journals use abstracting and five use summarizing in all their posts, with abstracting dominating in 12 journals and summarizing in 11.

In third place is quoting, the technique that adds the most value, appearing in 13.02% of posts. However, no journal uses this technique in 100% of its posts, nor is it dominant in any journal; it is always a complementary technique combined with others. This percentage is primarily driven by the journal Profesional de la Información, which accounts for 232 of the 272 curated posts in this category. Commenting follows with 5.73%, and retitling has a low presence with only six curated posts.

The publication patterns in LIS are more pronounced: in 20 of the 23 journals, the dominant technique appears in over 70% of posts. In two journals (Profesional de la Información and Journal of Librarianship and Information Science), two techniques surpass this 70% threshold. Both use abstracting, combined with quoting in the first case and summarizing in the second.

Finally, only one journal in this area uses all possible techniques: Big Data and Society, which is shared with the COM area. Three other journals (Journal of Health Communication, College and Research Libraries, and Profesional de la Información) use all techniques except one, with retitling being absent in all cases. On average, LIS journals demonstrate a diversity of 2.65 out of 5 possible techniques, a result slightly above average.

Comparison Between Areas

There are similarities and notable differences between the two areas. Among the similarities, abstracting and summarizing are the primary techniques used, with a significant gap compared to others, and retitling is the least used technique. Additionally, the average diversity of techniques is comparable between the two areas.

On the other hand, key differences include that COM journals summarize and comment more frequently than LIS journals, while LIS journals make greater use of abstracting and quoting. Furthermore, while the average diversity of techniques is similar, it is slightly higher in COM. This is due to LIS journals favoring the simplest and most basic technique, abstracting, whereas COM journals employ summarizing more extensively. Additionally, more COM journals use all but one technique compared to LIS journals (12 versus 3).

3.3.4. Integration of Curated Content, Hashtags, and Mentions

In the context of integration, it is important to note that a single post may (though rarely) feature curated content integrated using different methods, such as web hyperlinks, links to own social media, or content from another social platform (as shown on

Table 6. Integration of curated content, hashtags, and mentions.

SJR Area	Web Hyperlink Posts	% of Total Posts	Link to Own Media Posts	% of Total Posts	Content from Another Media Post	% of Total Posts	Hashtags	Mentions
LIS	3353	95.55%	141	4.01%	37	1.05%	5151	3417
COM	2091	98.35%	31	1.45%	4	0.18%	5699	1973

).

COM Journals

The active X profiles of COM journals integrate curated content predominantly through web hyperlinks, representing 95.55% of all curated posts, while integration via links to the same platform (4.01%) and to other social media platforms (1.05%) has minimal presence. Among these methods, some journals stand out for their specific practices. For instance, Big Data and Society leads in using web hyperlinks, with 446 curated posts. For links to the same platform, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly integrates 25 posts in this manner. Similarly, Comunicar excels in linking to other social platforms, also with 25 curated posts. Beyond integration methods, hashtags and mentions are consistently employed across COM journals, with 5151 hashtags and 3417 mentions found in 3509 curated posts. This results in averages of 1.46 hashtags and 0.97 mentions per post.

LIS Journals

In LIS journals, the integration of curated content similarly relies heavily on web hyperlinks, which account for 98.35% of posts. Integration through links to the same platform (1.45%) and to other social networks (0.18%) is even less common than in COM journals. Some journals stand out in this regard: Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling leads with 710 posts integrating web hyperlinks, while Journal of Health Communication uses links to the same platform in 20 posts. Integration through links to other social platforms is exceedingly rare, with just four posts across the LIS category, insufficient to highlight a dominant journal. Hashtags are a distinctive feature of LIS journals, with 5699 hashtags yielding an average of 2.68 hashtags per post. Mentions, in contrast, appear less frequently, with an average of 0.92 mentions per post, slightly below the COM average.

Comparison Between Areas

Despite similarities in the predominant use of external web hyperlinks for content integration in both areas, LIS journals exhibit a stronger reliance on this method than COM journals. Mentions show comparable usage between the two areas, with averages close to one mention per post. However, hashtags reveal a marked difference, as LIS journals employ nearly double the number of hashtags per post compared to COM journals, averaging 2.68 versus 1.46. This distinction underscores the greater emphasis LIS journals place on hashtag use as a tool for categorization or engagement.

4. Discussion

As stated previously in this article, this research can be divided into two parts: use and content curation. This discussion section will also be divided into two parts. Our results for the use of social media will be compared with other previous studies. Then, our results will be compared with the same studies or others but in the content curation field.

Regarding the use of social media by scientific journals, a general comparison will first be made with a series of articles addressing this topic, followed by a more detailed comparison of the results of this research with those of the three specific articles.

Early research on the social media strategies of scientific journals highlighted a strong preference for X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook (Zedda & Barbaro, 2015; Viera Savigne et al., 2024). This trend persists, particularly in Communication (COM) and Library and Information Science (LIS), aligning with X’s role as a key platform for scientific communication (Orizaola & Valdés, 2015; Haustein, 2019). Studies have also noted Facebook’s use of content diffusion in health-related journals and others from regions like Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador (Cueva Estrada et al., 2023; Sumba et al., 2024) and also for Science, Technology, and Innovation Organizations (Stable-Rodríguez & Álvarez Calderón, 2021). In contrast, platforms like Instagram, LinkedIn, and YouTube remain underutilized. However, social networks have become a common interest in the evaluation of the promotion and dissemination processes of scientific journals (López-Hung et al., 2022).

Recent shifts on X, following Elon Musk’s 2022 acquisition, have sparked concerns about misinformation, bots, and hate speech, driving some scientific communities toward alternatives (Arroyo-Machado, 2023), where, for example, a notable recent trend advocates for the migration of profiles to Bluesky, Threads, and Mastodon. Despite these dynamics, no significant changes in journal behavior on social media are yet evident.

Social media engagement among academic journals remains limited, with substantial variation across disciplines. High-impact COM journals lead with 55% having a social media presence, compared to 37% in LIS. This disparity is partly attributable to COM’s natural focus on communication. Overall, 35% of journals indexed in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) maintain profiles on X (Nishikawa-Pacher, 2023). While LIS aligns with this average, the numbers fall short of editors’ expectations for social media use (Arcila-Calderón et al., 2019), especially given the growing evidence of these platforms’ influences on academic impacts in fields like COM (Özkent, 2022).

The comparison between this research and the study by Cascón-Katchadourian et al. (2024) shows that, although both are based on data from SJR, the former uses the year 2022, while the reference study uses data from 2021. In general terms, both COM and LIS have increased the number of Q1 journals (from 112 to 118 and 61 to 64, respectively). However, the results of social media in COM show setbacks: the percentage of active profiles decreases by one percentage point and the number of inactive profiles increases, although the use of two or more networks improves (from 18 to 22 journals). Furthermore, the exclusive use of X as the main platform grows, while the percentage of journals on Facebook and those that combine both decreases.

In LIS, the outlook is more favorable, with an increase in own and active profiles (from 16 to 24), and a slight reduction in inactive profiles (from 3 to 2) and those that only have publisher profiles. However, an increase in the exclusive use of a single active social network stands out. Although the use of X decreases slightly, the number of active profiles increases (from 16 to 23), and Facebook gains presence both individually and combined with X. Facebook and YouTube remain leading inactive profiles.

The comparison with previous studies such as Cascón-Katchadourian et al. (2023), and Artigas and Guallar (2022) shows significant differences. These studies are about the LIS and COM area from Ibero-American journals and taking into account all quartiles. Only one of the journals (el Profesional de la Información) is analyzed in all the investigations. Ibero-American LIS journals exhibit better percentages of their own and active profiles (55% compared to 37.5% in high global impact journals), while Ibero-American COMs present lower figures (37.2% compared to 55.08%). Ibero-American LIS journals have more inactive profiles in proportion, since the analysis of the journals covers three times as many journals. The Ibero-American COMs surpass the global ones in this aspect, with only two inactive journals compared to eight.

Finally, X dominates in both categories and regions as the top social network, with significant usage as the only platform, which is not new for scientific journals (Zedda & Barbaro, 2015; Viera Savigne et al., 2024). In Ibero-American LIS, Facebook follows X at a great distance. In Ibero-American COM, X and Facebook are balanced in use, and many journals combine both platforms.

This study confirms the extensive use of content curation in posts on X by high-impact scientific journals in COM and LIS. These findings align with previous research focused on journals from Ibero-America (Artigas & Guallar, 2022; Cascón-Katchadourian et al., 2023). In terms of themes, a similar pattern emerges, although some nuances should be noted. While this study considers a variety of categories (CFP, Current Issue Dissemination, Own Activities, External Content, and Other), grouped under the single heading of Other Topics in previous research, it is evident that the theme Current Volume Papers is overwhelmingly dominant in the social media publications of journals. The remaining themes are far less represented, although this might appear otherwise in the study of Ibero-American communication journals (Artigas & Guallar, 2022) due to the grouping of what are treated here as five distinct topics under the broader category of Other Topics. For the same reason, the category Previous Volume Papers is more prominently featured in this study than in the aforementioned research. In any case, all studies reveal a common publishing strategy among journals, characterized by a strong focus on current issues and a limited retrospective perspective on each journal’s past.

In the analysis of curation techniques, we find that, unlike specific studies on Ibero-American COM and LIS journals (Artigas & Guallar, 2022; Cascón-Katchadourian et al., 2023) where the most common technique is commenting, the most frequently used technique in the high-impact journals analyzed in this study is summarizing. This discrepancy may be attributed to differences in the study samples: previous studies included journals from all quartiles and focused on Ibero-America, while this research examines only high-impact journals (Q1) on a global scale, with only four journals overlapping between the samples. Therefore, it can be stated that summarizing is the most widely employed technique by high-impact COM and LIS journals in X, followed by abstracting (which ranks first in LIS), and, at a considerable distance, commenting and quoting. Similarly, the prominence of certain techniques in specific journals is evident both here and in prior studies. For instance, Profesional de la Información stands out with a high publication volume, relying almost exclusively on the quoting technique.

With respect to the integration of curated content, this study provides a quantitative analysis that establishes the predominant use of web hyperlinks as the main method of presenting curated content, with only a marginal use of links to social media platforms. This finding builds upon earlier research that focused on taxonomies and best practices (Gil & Guallar, 2023; Guallar & Traver, 2020), offering a more precise understanding of the prevalence of this integration approach.

Finally, this research connects its findings to studies that delve into the characteristics and quality of digital content curation performed by various actors, organizations, and platforms, including digital media, newsletters, and social networks (Cui & Liu, 2017; Seely & Spillman, 2021; Guallar et al., 2022a; Lopezosa et al., 2023). This global analysis represents a significant contribution to understanding the features, levels, and techniques of digital content curation within the current ecosystem of curated internet flows (Thorson & Wells, 2016), extending the perspective to encompass high-impact scientific journals on a global scale.

5. Conclusions

In relation to RQ 1 (adoption and use of social media), it can be concluded that the presence of Q1 journals from the COM and LIS categories on social media platforms differs significantly between the two fields, with a notably higher presence in COM compared to LIS. This finding was also validated through the chi-square test, which, with a confidence level exceeding 96%, indicates that journals in the COM field make significantly greater use of social media compared to those in the LIS field. Despite the greater presence in COM, the findings of this study suggest that the percentage of active social media profiles among scientific journals still needs improvement, with 55% in COM and 37.5% in LIS. Moreover, it is uncommon for journals in either category to maintain multiple social media profiles. Specifically, 79.16% of LIS journals are active on only one platform, while the majority of COM journals (66.15%) similarly restrict their activity to a single social media. We must highlight the seven journals that have three or more profiles on social networks if we add the two categories: Comunicar, Profesional de la Información, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, Feminist Media Studies, Journal of Media Psychology, North American journal College and Research Libraries.

Regarding the level of adoption of social media of global high-impact journals with respect to those studied in Ibero-American journals, the former have a worse performance compared to the latter in LIS, but the opposite occurs in COM.

With regard to the use of mainstream social media platforms by high-impact scientific journals in COM and LIS (RQ1), X emerges as the dominant platform, significantly surpassing the others. In COM, 58 journals maintain profiles on X, more than double the number on Facebook (21), while in LIS, X is used by 23 journals, over four times the number on Facebook (5). X is particularly notable as it serves as the sole dissemination platform for both categories, being exclusively utilized by more than half of COM journals and three-quarters of LIS journals. Facebook ranks as the second most-used platform, positioned well below X but still considerably ahead of the remaining social media platforms. As the results indicate, X and Facebook frequently co-occur in the social media presence of these journals. By contrast, platforms such as LinkedIn, Instagram, and particularly YouTube play a more marginal role, with their usage significantly trailing behind that of X and Facebook. This secondary role is clearly observed in that these social networks almost never have exclusive profiles, but always accompany others. Both Facebook and YouTube data suggest that they are the platforms that are ceasing to be used the most; this is very significant in the case of YouTube since out of the five profiles created over the years, only one remains active. On the other hand, LinkedIn is most used to create a profile and not provide content, due to its greater visibility to others.

Regarding the comparison between the two areas studied with respect to their use, the anticipated superior performance of journals in the COM category compared to those in LIS warrants emphasis. However, it is important to note that the performance of COM journals needs improvement, particularly considering the nature of the field they represent. Moreover, their data have not improved compared to the previous year, as discussed in the previous section. In the case of LIS, their performance has been poor. However, this last year has seen a noticeable improvement, especially in terms of the number of active profiles. Despite this, both LIS and COM journals still have significant room for improvement, according to this research.

Regarding RQ2, which addresses the level of implementation of content curation, its presence is very high in both areas, with LIS showing an even higher level (93% vs. 80%). Similarly, the journals in the LIS area publish more posts per journal and more curated posts per journal than those in the COM area, a finding that is consistent with previous studies on these fields.

As for RQ3 (curation themes), the posts prioritize the individual dissemination of each recently published article by the journal, as already noted, which occurs in approximately two out of every three content curated posts. The topic of Previous Volume Papers ranks second in importance, but at a significant distance from the former. In this study, it surpasses the other minor categories. This differs from previous studies because the minor categories were grouped under the label “Other Topics”. Other conclusions are that COM profiles diversify their content slightly more than those in LIS, whose posts are more focused on articles from the current and previous volumes. Among the minor topics, COM prioritizes the dissemination of the current volume, Calls for Papers, and Other, while LIS prioritizes its own activities and external content. In this sense, it is remarkable that LIS journals show interest in disseminating external content from other organizations/individuals.

Regarding RQ4 (curation techniques), the most used techniques are summarizing and abstracting, with some nuances between the two areas. In COM, the difference between the use of one or the other is small, while in LIS, the presence of abstracting is 30 percentage points higher. Therefore, it can be considered that LIS journals generally overuse the simpler technique, which limits the value of their content curation. Both commenting and quoting are used less, possibly due to their greater difficulty, although in COM journals, commenting yields a satisfactory result. Additionally, it should be noted that most journals follow a pattern in their posts regarding the techniques used, with two journals standing out for using all available techniques: Big Data and Society and Communication Monograph.

Regarding RQ5 and the integration of curated content within tweets, it was observed that both in LIS and COM, the integration method of choice is almost exclusively through web hyperlinks, with a higher number of hashtags than mentions in the journals’ posts. Moreover, both the average number of external links per journal and the average number of hashtags is higher in LIS journals.

Practical Implications, Limitations, and Future Studies

Finally, several practical implications and limitations of this study can be established, along with suggestions for future research.

First, a series of practical implications in the form of recommendations for scientific journal editors can be drawn from this study.

• At a general level, editors should consider creating dedicated social media profiles as a strategy to increase the visibility and impact of their journals.
• Editors should prioritize creating profiles on X, as it is currently the preferred social platform for the scientific community. However, given the recent changes mentioned, and depending on their evolution in the near future, entry into the new social platform Bluesky could also be explored.
• It is further recommended that editors consider using other platforms such as Instagram, LinkedIn, or YouTube, depending on whether they have a clear strategy and resources to keep them active.
• Journals would benefit from regularly publishing content on a variety of themes, and while continuing to prioritize the latest articles, they could revisit older publications to give them new life, curating all content, including external materials, that may be of interest to their community.
• Journals should delve deeper into combining different curation techniques to produce varied posts. Beyond the commonly used techniques of summarizing and abstracting, they should increase the use of commenting and quoting to add more value to their curation.
• Finally, regarding the integration of curated content within posts, alongside the highly effective web hyperlinks system, which allows users easy access to the original content of articles and other topics, journals should explore other options and maintain a strategic use of hashtags and mentions to enhance the visibility of their posts.

There are some limitations to this study. First, by focusing on journals located in the Q1 quartile of SJR in the COM and LIS areas, the results cannot necessarily be generalized to journals of lower impact or from other fields. Additionally, although the adoption and usage analysis was conducted across five platforms, the curation analysis was only carried out on X, thus limiting the results of this section to a single platform. Furthermore, the data pertains to the year 2023, meaning that trends and platform usage changes before or after that year are not captured. On the other hand, there are some methodological differences compared to previous studies, such as grouping certain topics into one category, which hinders the direct comparison of our results with others. Finally, this study follows a strictly quantitative approach to the use of social media and content curation, so the absence of qualitative analysis, such as interviews with editors, may limit the understanding of the strategies employed by journals.

Finally, based on the limitations noted, several suggestions for future research are proposed. First, the scope of this study could be expanded to include journals with varying levels of impact (not just Q1), for example, journals from small publishers or for larger publishers, and from other disciplines to obtain a broader and more generalizable understanding of social media use and content curation in scientific journals. Emerging or new platforms such as Bluesky could be explored further, as well as expanding the curation study beyond X. Longitudinal studies would also be very valuable for detecting the evolution and main trends in journal behavior. It would also be interesting to conduct a comparative analysis of the achieved level of impact of journals that use social media for dissemination and those that do not. Finally, it would be very interesting to complement a quantitative analysis like the one presented here with qualitative methods, such as interviews with journal editors, audience interaction analysis, or in-depth case studies to better understand the strategies and challenges faced by scientific journals regarding their social media presence.