Interdisciplinarity of scientific production on hate speech and social media: A bibliometric analysis

Ramírez-García, Antonia, González-Molina, Antonio, Gutiérrez-Arenas, María-del-Pilar and Moyano-Pacheco, Manuel Interdisciplinarity of scientific production on hate speech and social media: A bibliometric analysis. Comunicar, 2022, vol. 30, n. 72, pp. 129-140. [Journal article (Paginated)]

[thumbnail of Research article (English)]
Preview
 Text (Research article (English))
c7210en.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.
Download (6MB) | Preview
[thumbnail of Research article (Español)]
Preview
 Text (Research article (Español))
c7210es.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike.
Download (5MB) | Preview

English abstract

The impact of hate speech, both on a personal and social level, has increased due to social media. This has made it the focus of interest of numerous scientific journals, which increases the visibility of this global problem. The aim of this research is to analyse the basic descriptive metrics of the scientific production on hate speech and social media, as well as to explore the interdisciplinarity of these approaches. A bibliometric study has been carried out on the basis of the works indexed in the Scopus database related to the binomial ‘hate speech’ and ‘social media’ over a period of 20 years (2001 to 2020). The metrics used show that it is from 2017 onwards when this topic begins to arouse greater interest among researchers and that they constitute a sufficient indicator to consider the topic as one of interest to the scientific community. The joint research between both concepts raises its quality levels from a strictly metric point of view. ‘Computer Science’ and ‘Social Sciences’ are the two areas that clearly define the scientific production on this subject. The inversion of percentages in terms of the areas of origin of the works and citations in these two areas, is evidence of this interdisciplinarity. The indicators obtained show the relevance and transcendence of a social problem in the face of which proactive measures must be implemented.

Spanish abstract

Las repercusiones que tiene el discurso del odio, tanto a nivel personal como social, se han intensificado con las redes sociales. Esto lo ha convertido en centro de interés de numerosas revistas científicas, lo que incrementa la visibilización de esta problemática global. El objetivo de esta investigación es analizar las métricas básicas descriptivas de la producción científica sobre el discurso del odio y redes sociales, así como explorar la interdisciplinariedad de estos enfoques. Se ha llevado a cabo un estudio bibliométrico a partir de trabajos indexados en la base de datos Scopus relacionados con el binomio «discurso de odio» y «redes sociales», en un período temporal de 20 años (2001 a 2020). Las métricas utilizadas demuestran que, a partir del año 2017, esta temática comienza a despertar mayor interés entre los investigadores, constituyéndose un indicador suficiente para considerar el tema como de interés por parte de la comunidad científica. La investigación conjunta entre ambos conceptos eleva sus niveles de calidad desde un punto de vista estrictamente métrico. Las áreas «Computer Science» y «Social Sciences» son las dos que definen claramente la producción científica sobre este tema. La inversión de porcentajes en cuanto a áreas de procedencia de los trabajos y citas en estas dos áreas evidencian esta interdisciplinariedad. Los indicadores obtenidos muestran la relevancia y trascendencia de un problema social ante el que se deben implementar medidas proactivas.

Item type: Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords: Hate speech; bibliometric analysis; social media; interdisciplinarity; scientific production; visibility; Discurso del odio; análisis bibliométrico; redes sociales; interdisciplinariedad; producción científica; visibilización
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BJ. Communication
G. Industry, profession and education.
G. Industry, profession and education. > GH. Education.
Depositing user: Alex Ruiz
Date deposited: 23 Jul 2022 18:31
Last modified: 23 Jul 2022 18:31
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/43434

References

Abanmy, N.O., Al-Quait, N.A., Alami, A.H., Al-Juhani, M.H., & Al-Aqeel, S. (2012). The utilization of Arabic online drug information among adults in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 20(4), 317-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2012.07.001

Australian Computer Society (Ed.) (2005). Conferences in research and practice in information technology. Seventh Australasian Computing Education Conference. https://bit.ly/3kyB0iA

Ávila-Robinson, A., Mejia, C., & Sengoku, S. (2021). Are bibliometric measures consistent with scientists’ perceptions? The case of interdisciplinarity in research. Scientometrics, 126(9), 7477-7502. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11192-021-04048-0

Ballesteros-Aguayo, L., & Langa-Nuño, C. (2018). Movimientos populistas en Europa: La actualización del discurso totalitario en los medios de comunicación actuales y su repercusión en la opinión pública. Egregius. https://bit.ly/3tqgA0R

Barnes, R.I., Earl, G.F., Papazoglou, M., Burchett, L., & Terzuoli, A.J. (2010). The Instagram: A novel sounding technique for enhanced HF propagation advice. In IEEE National Radar Conference (pp. 1446-1449). https://doi.org/10.1109/RADAR.2010.5494387

Ben, A., & Matamoros, A. (2016). Hate speech and covert discrimination on social media: Monitoring the Facebook pages of extreme-right political parties in Spain. International Journal of Communication, 10, 1167-1193. https://bit.ly/3Bkevok

Bornmann, L. (2014). How are excellent (highly cited) papers defined in bibliometrics? A quantitative analysis of the literature. Research Evaluation, 23(2), 166-173. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu002

Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L., Walch-Solimena, C., & Ettl, C. (2011). Mapping excellence in the geography of science: An approach based on Scopus data. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 537-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2011.05.005

BRaVE (Ed.) (2019). Preventing redressing and inhibiting hate speech in new media. https://bit.ly/3euQUrP

Burnap, P., & Williams, M.L. (2015). Cyber hate speech on Twitter: An application of machine classification and statistical modeling for policy and decision making. Policy & Internet, 7(2), 223-242. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.85

Cabrera, J.F. (2020). Producción científica sobre integración de TIC a la Educación Física. Estudio bibliométrico en el periodo 1995-2017. Retos, 37, 748-754. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v37i37.67348

Carneiro-Barrera, A., Ruiz-Herrera, N., & Díaz-Román, A. (2019). Tesis doctorales en Psicología tras la adaptación al Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. Revista de Investigación en Educación, 17(1), 32-43. https://bit.ly/2ZuI45t

Chakraborti, N., Garland, J., & Hardy, S.J. (2014). The Leicester hate crime project: Findings and conclusions. University of Leicester. https://bit.ly/38lTPzQ

Chen, S., Arsenault, C., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2014). Exploring the interdisciplinary evolution of a discipline: the case of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1307-1323. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11192-014-1457-6

Comisión Europea (Ed.) (2020). El código de conducta de la UE para la lucha contra la incitación ilegal al odio en Internet (comunicado de prensa IP/20/1134). https://bit.ly/32lrxX3

Consejo de Europa (Ed.) (1997). Recomendación del Comité de Ministros del nº R (97) 20. https://bit.ly/3mBZASv

Estabrooks, C.A., Winther, C., & Derksen, L. (2004). Mapping the field: A bibliometric analysis of the research utilization literature in nursing. Nursing Research, 53(5), 293-303. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-200409000-00003

Gagliardone, I., Gal, D., Alves, T., & Martínez, G. (2015). Countering online hate speech. Programme in comparative media law and policy. University of Oxford. https://bit.ly/2XYfE6F

Galeano, S. (2021, January 28). Cuales son las redes sociales con más usuarios del mundo. Marketing Ecommerce. https://bit.ly/3DmqAex

Garton, T. (2017). Libertad de palabra. Diez principios para un mundo interconectado. Tusquets.

Gascón, A. (2019). La lucha contra el discurso del odio en línea en la Unión Europea y los intermediarios de Internet. In Z. Combalía, M.P. Diago, & A. González-Varas (Eds.), Libertad de expresión y discurso de odio por motivos religiosos (pp. 64-86). Ediciones del Licregdi. https://bit.ly/3wkba9G

Gillespie, T. (2010). The politics of platforms. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809342738

Green, H. (2007). Twitter. All trivia, all the time. Business Week, 4028, 40.

Greene, K. (2007). Whats is he doing? MIT Technology Review, 110(6), 44-51. https://bit.ly/3sLu4Em

Gross, R., Acquisti, A., & Heinz-III, H.J. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In WPES'05: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (pp. 71-80). https://doi.org/10.1145/1102199.1102214

Guerrero-Bote, V.P., & Moya-Anegón, F. (2012). A further step forward in measuring journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR2 indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 674-688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.001

Guerrero-Bote, V.P., Olmeda-Gómez, C., & de-Moya-Anegón, F. (2013). Quantifying the benefits of international scientific collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 392-404. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22754

Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Martínez, M.A., Moral-Munoz, J.A., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Cobo, M.J. (2018). Some bibliometric procedures for analyzing and evaluating research fields. Appl Intell, 48, 1275-1287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-017-1105-y

Hardaker, C. (2013, August 3). What is turning so many young men into trolls? The Guardian. https://bit.ly/2Wod9dF

Info Raxen (Ed.) (n.d.). Servicio de noticias de movimiento contra la intolerancia. https://bit.ly/3kua2Zp

Jaramillo, S., Cardona, S.A., & Fernández, A. (2015). Minería de datos sobre streams de redes sociales, una herramienta al servicio de la Bibliotecología. Información, Cultura y Sociedad, 33, 63-74. https://doi.org/10.34096/ics.i33.1182

Khosravinik, M., & Esposito, E. (2018). Online hate, digital discourse and critique: Exploring digitally-mediated discursive practices of gender-based hostility. Lodz Paper in Pragmatics, 14(1), 45-68. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0003

Khosrowjerdi, M., & Bayat, M.K. (2013). Mapping the Interdisciplinarity in Scientometric Studies. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 28(2), 393-409. https://bit.ly/3CAUiwp

Kim, J.H. (2011). A study on the graphic user interface for emotional communications in the mobile messenger -focused on 'Kakao Talk' and ‘WhatsApp' by case analysis. Korea Open Access Journal, 18, 142-155. https://doi.org/10.17246/jkdk.2011.18.015

Kvalnes, O. (2010). Moral reasoning at work: Rethinking ethics in organizations. Palgrave pivot. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137532619.0001

Lashinsky, A. (2005). Facebook stares down success. Fortune, 152(11), 40. bit.ly/3EXzv72

Leydesdorff, L., & Nerghes, A. (2017). Co-word maps and topic modeling: A Comparison using small and medium-sized corpora (N< 1,000). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(4), 1024-1035. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23740

Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2011). Indicators of the interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and citations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 87-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.09.002

Liu, W., Liu, W., Li, M., Chen, P., Yang, L., Xiao, Ch., & Ye, Y. (2018). Fine-grained task-level parallel and low power h.264 decoding in multi-core systems. In 24th IEEE International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS). https://doi.org/10.1109/PADSW.2018.8644865

Losada-Díaz, J.C., Zamora-Medina, R., & Martínez-Martínez, H. (2021). El discurso del odio en Instagram durante las Elecciones Generales 2019 en España. Revista Mediterránea de Comunicación, 12(2), 195-208. https://doi.org/10.14198/MEDCOM.19142

Marabel, J.J. (2021). Delitos de odio y redes sociales: El derecho frente al reto de las nuevas tecnologías. Revista de Derecho UNED, 27, 137-172. https://doi.org/10.5944/rduned.27.2021.31076

Marín-Aranguren, E.M., & Trejos-Mateu, F.D. (2019). Sociedad civil en red y gobernanza de la Agenda 2030. Forum, 15, 91-117. https://doi.org/10.15446/frdcp.n15.74544

Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado-López, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics, 126, 871-906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4

Martínez-Nicolás, M., & Saperas, E. (2011). La investigación sobre Comunicación en España (1998-2007). Análisis de los artículos publicados en revistas científicas. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 66, 101-129. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-66-2011-926-101-129

McFedries, P. (2007). Technical Speaking: All A-Twitter. IEEE Spectrum, 44(10), 84. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.2007.4337670

Merino-Arribas, A., & López-Meri, A. (2018). La lucha contra el inmigracionalismo y el discurso del odio en el metamedio social Twitter. En J.L. González-Esteban, & J.A. García-Avilés (Eds.), Mediamorfosis. Radiografía de la innovación en el periodismo (pp. 211-224). https://bit.ly/38jehBv

Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research, 246(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002

Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores (Ed.) (1999). Resolución de 5 de abril de 1999, de la Secretaría General Técnica, por la que se hacen públicos los textos refundidos del Convenio para la protección de los derechos y de las libertades fundamentales. 6 de mayo de 1999, BOE nº 108. https://bit.ly/2Wv4OVq

Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y de Cooperación (Ed.) (2016). Recomendación General nº 15 sobre Líneas de Actuación en relación con la lucha contra las expersiones de incitación al odio. https://bit.ly/3mAEdRz

Mishra, R. (2021). Are we doing enough? A Bibliometric analysis of hate speech research in the selected database of Scopus. Library Philosophy and Practice, 5140. https://bit.ly/3sxcZyj

Montero-Díaz, J., Cobo, M., Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M., Segado-Boj, F., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2018). A science mapping analysis of ‘Communication’ WoS subject category (1980-2013). [Mapeo científico de la Categoría «Comunicación» en WoS (1980-2013)]. Comunicar, 55, 81-91. https://doi.org/10.3916/C55-2018-08

Nikou, S., Bouwman, H., & De-Reuver, M. (2012a). The potential of converged mobile telecommunication services: A conjoint analysis. Info, 14(5), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636691211256287

Nikou, S., Bouwman, H., & De-Reuver, M. (2012b). Mobile converged rich communication services: A conjoint analysis. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1353-1362. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.434

Parekh, B. (2006). Hate speech. Is there a case of banning? Public Policy Research 12(4), 213-223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1070-3535.2005.00405.x

Porter, A.L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719-745. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11192-008-2197-2

PRISMA (Ed.) (2020). Declaración PRISMA. https://bit.ly/33JwE3x

Rehn, C., & Kronman, U. (2008). Bibliometric handbook for Karolinska Institutet. Karolinska Institutet. https://bit.ly/3qmpbQm

Repiso-Caballero, R., Torres-Salinas, D., & Delgado López-Cozar, E. (2016). Análisis de la relación entre disciplinas a través del uso de tesis doctorales. El caso de Televisión, Radio, Cine y Fotografía en España. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 71, 874-890. https://doi.org/10.4185/RLCS-2016-1125

Rinia, E.J., van Leeuwen, T.N., & van-Raan, A.F.J. (2002). Impact measures of interdisciplinary research in physics. Budapest Scientometrics, 53(2), 241-248. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014856625623

Shafer, L. (2016). TiK ToK on the Clock, but the party don't stop, no: The parodic military dance video on YouTube. In D.A. Cunningham, & J.C. Nelson (Eds.), A companion to the war film (pp. 320-337). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118337653.ch19

Singh, V.K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M., Leta, J., & Mayer, P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometric, 126, 5113-5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5

Snowball Metrics (Ed.) (n.d.). Standardized research metrics – by the sector for the sector. https://bit.ly/3J6cLmS

Tontodimamma, A., Nissi, E., Sarra, A., & Fontanella, L. (2021). Thirty years of research into hate speech: Topics of interest and their evolution. Scientometrics, 126(1), 157-179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03737-6

Vargas-Quesada, B., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., & Rodríguez, N. (2017). Identification and Visualization of the Intellectual Structure in Graphene Research. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 0, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2017.00007

Viseu, A. (2015). Integration of social science into research is crucial. Nature, 525(7569), 291-291. https://doi.org/10.1038/525291a

Wachs, S., & Wright, M.F. (2019). The moderation of online disinhibition and sex on the relationship between online hate victimization and perpetration. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(5), 300-306. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0551

Waldron, J. (2012). The harm in hate speech. Harvard University. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674065086

Wang, Z.Y., Li, G., Li, C.Y., & Li, A. (2012). Research on the semantic-based co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 90(3), 855-875. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11192-011-0563-Y

Woolley, S. (2006a). Raw and random. Forbes, 177(5), 46. https://bit.ly/3zqtUmu

Woolley, S. (2006b). The YouTube revolution. Forbes, 178(8), 100. https://bit.ly/38hphzp

Wright, M.F., Wachs, S., & Gámez-Guadix, M. (2021). Youths’ coping with cyberhate: Roles of parental mediation and family support. [Jóvenes ante el ciberodio: El rol de la mediación parental y el apoyo familiar]. Comunicar, 67, 21-33. https://doi.org/10.3916/C67-2021-02


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS