Media Platformsthan average, those that did click were engaged in the

Media Platformsthan average, those that did click were engaged in the history and kept clicking further to read the full long-form article.Concluding DiscussionHow does the public engage with science communication items on different platforms of social media? To some extent, engagement is similar irrespective of platform, but in some respects it differs. The small Instagram audience at the time of the study was quick to click on the “Like” and “Comment” buttons, especially on awe-inspiring images. Twitter French and Google+ users tend to click on links more often, and the Twitter French users who click on links spend a long time reading the CERN webpage. However, across all platforms, user engagement with scientific items on social media tends to fluctuate due to frequent “high engagement” items. Often (but not always) the same “high engagement” topics attract interactions across platforms. Awe-inspiring imagery, for example, is especially likely to lead to high engagement (similar to findings described in [21]). Some of these differences can perhaps be explained by four factors: (1) Platform effects; (2) Audience effects; and (3) Content effects.Platform EffectsThe ways digital tools such as social media platforms are designed may affect what we can and would want to use them for. By using them, “we implicitly accept the rules designed into the tools by the organizations that created them” [23]. For example, by algorithmically predetermining which Facebook users might see an item, the potential audience for engagement with that item is limited a priori. Moreover, Instagram does not have a share button and does not allow clickable links in image captions. Consequently, different social media platforms might promote different types of engagement with science, and shape different kinds of learning outcomes.Audience EffectsOn average, smaller audiences, such as Instagram in CERN’s case, seem to be more engaged audiences. Perhaps in new accounts, “early adopters” might tend to be more engaged users. Also, large audiences might tend to include many inactive followers. Some “high engagement” topics may be specific to certain platforms because of the unique characteristics of the audiences on different platforms (e.g., the opening of a film in French-speaking Switzerland and in France was of particular interest to followers on Twitter French).Content EffectsScientific items on social media that tend to attract large numbers of user interactions include some awe-inspiring imagery as well as news items that were newsworthy enough to receive attention from the traditional mainstream media. Particle physics requires large investments of public money, and has stood under public scrutiny over safety concerns over black holes [68], but otherwise it seems to be regarded with a positive sentiment, and it does not seem to be as U0126 site controversial a topic as other sciences. This may explain why commenting was found to be such a relatively rare behaviour in this study compared with other behaviours, across all platforms [16]. We predict that hot-button topics such as animal research or genetically modified foods are likely to attract more comments under similar conditions [14].PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0156409 May 27,17 /Engagement with Particle Physics on CERN’s Social Media PlatformsIn addition, other communication strategies for particle physics may result in different engagement behaviour, for example, Symmetry Mdivi-1MedChemExpress Mdivi-1 Magazine [69], a magazine of parti.Media Platformsthan average, those that did click were engaged in the history and kept clicking further to read the full long-form article.Concluding DiscussionHow does the public engage with science communication items on different platforms of social media? To some extent, engagement is similar irrespective of platform, but in some respects it differs. The small Instagram audience at the time of the study was quick to click on the “Like” and “Comment” buttons, especially on awe-inspiring images. Twitter French and Google+ users tend to click on links more often, and the Twitter French users who click on links spend a long time reading the CERN webpage. However, across all platforms, user engagement with scientific items on social media tends to fluctuate due to frequent “high engagement” items. Often (but not always) the same “high engagement” topics attract interactions across platforms. Awe-inspiring imagery, for example, is especially likely to lead to high engagement (similar to findings described in [21]). Some of these differences can perhaps be explained by four factors: (1) Platform effects; (2) Audience effects; and (3) Content effects.Platform EffectsThe ways digital tools such as social media platforms are designed may affect what we can and would want to use them for. By using them, “we implicitly accept the rules designed into the tools by the organizations that created them” [23]. For example, by algorithmically predetermining which Facebook users might see an item, the potential audience for engagement with that item is limited a priori. Moreover, Instagram does not have a share button and does not allow clickable links in image captions. Consequently, different social media platforms might promote different types of engagement with science, and shape different kinds of learning outcomes.Audience EffectsOn average, smaller audiences, such as Instagram in CERN’s case, seem to be more engaged audiences. Perhaps in new accounts, “early adopters” might tend to be more engaged users. Also, large audiences might tend to include many inactive followers. Some “high engagement” topics may be specific to certain platforms because of the unique characteristics of the audiences on different platforms (e.g., the opening of a film in French-speaking Switzerland and in France was of particular interest to followers on Twitter French).Content EffectsScientific items on social media that tend to attract large numbers of user interactions include some awe-inspiring imagery as well as news items that were newsworthy enough to receive attention from the traditional mainstream media. Particle physics requires large investments of public money, and has stood under public scrutiny over safety concerns over black holes [68], but otherwise it seems to be regarded with a positive sentiment, and it does not seem to be as controversial a topic as other sciences. This may explain why commenting was found to be such a relatively rare behaviour in this study compared with other behaviours, across all platforms [16]. We predict that hot-button topics such as animal research or genetically modified foods are likely to attract more comments under similar conditions [14].PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0156409 May 27,17 /Engagement with Particle Physics on CERN’s Social Media PlatformsIn addition, other communication strategies for particle physics may result in different engagement behaviour, for example, Symmetry Magazine [69], a magazine of parti.