This summary of recent BMJ tweets and retweets uses data from 3,196 tweets and retweets made between 6 March and 20 June 2020, extracted using NodeXL. There were 1,996 tweets by BMJ_latest, and 1,200 retweets of posts from 665 accounts, in total receiving 87,874 retweets. On average tweets received 15  retweets (interquartile range 8-29) based on 3,094 tweets (after excluding tweets from 20 June as they had just been posted, and replies as they are displayed differently to original tweets).  There was little difference in number of retweets received for BMJ posts (n=16 retweets; IQR 9-33) and the tweets they retweeted (n=13 retweets; IQR 8-24). 
The top 120 tweets, which all received at least 100 retweets, are listed chronologically below. The top tweeters, based on number of retweets received, are listed first in the table below. The 120 most popular tweets were posted by 27 tweeters and received 25,984 retweets (30% of the total).
For interest I mapped other medical journals to see the patterns that emerged. Each map also charted 3,200 tweets and was plotted using the same settings and scale. Compared with the BMJ a similar diversity of interactions (vertices) is observed for BJSM, The Lancet and JAMA, but fewer interactions are seen for Nature Medicine (about half the number of vertices) and many fewer for NEJM (about an eighth of the vertices). There are also important differences in the level of tweeting and retweeting over time. The BMJ posted 3,200 tweets and retweets in 105 days, BJSM in 242 days, The Lancet and NEJM in just over 440 days, while Nature Medicine took over 4 years to post this level of content. 
Read the associated blog here. I have repeated the analysis for a subsequent period - 13 December 2020 to 13 March 2021 - available here.

Items