You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Put another way, it's not so much about the science of science, as the science of the extremely limited set of things we can measure about science. Citations are not uninteresting, but there's a reason Boltzmann's grave has S = k log W on it, not his h-indexpic.twitter.com/RVhOGtTaEA
Anyways, it's a useful survey paper, with much that was new to me in it. And it was fun to make a first pass over it "in public" like this 
Thanks, well put! I considered making a thread too, with an almost identical set of text snippets. On their focus, don’t they explain it themselves:”When scientists choose new topics, they prefer things directly related to their current expertise or that of their collaborators”
Thanks a lot for your descriptions of these key points. Very enlightening :)
That’s a pretty great teaser, Michael. Off to read the full paper.
Thanks, I will send this thread to my final year tutorial group, who are studying the paper.
One interesting thing to measure would be "closed loops" of research- research which at first seems legit, but one looking closer exists solely for the purpose of boosting citations and papers of a small groups of colleages, which doesnt add any sort of significant value (1/2)
and whose effects stay limited to that closed group and do not enrich or affect any other areas of the field over time.(2/2)
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
