Paper Title: Science communication in social Media: Analysis of success on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube across scientific disciplines

Author(s) and Year: M. Aiger et al. (2026)

Journal: Computers in Human Behavior (open access link) 

TL;DR: A recent study of 1,200 top-performing science posts across YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok shows engagement depends on how messages are framed and how well they fit the platform’s culture. Linguistic factors like tone, irony, and subjectivity play different roles across platforms and disciplines.  Understanding these differences can help scientists and communicators better tailor their messaging to engage audiences in different digital spaces. 

Why I chose this paper: This paper stood out because social media is one of the main ways people encounter science, yet it’s often unclear how to gain visibility. As audiences navigate an overwhelming flow of  information, communicators face similar uncertainty in reaching them. This paper offers practical, data-driven insights across platforms and subject areas that can help science communicators better connect with their audiences. 

The Background

From Journals to Feeds

Today, scientific information widely circulates across social media platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok. Scientists, educators, journalists, and science communicators alike all use these platforms to share discoveries, debunk misinformation, and engage with the public. 

But online environments are shaped by algorithms and audience behavior. Thus, the visibility of science content relies on how well it aligns with a platform’s ecosystem; however,  it’s unclear what makes a piece of content successful.

Previous studies have focused on surveys to understand how people engage with science online.  Montserrat Aiger and colleagues take a different approach by analyzing large-scale performance data from social media posts, allowing the team to identify factors contributing to the post’s success. 

The researchers wanted to understand:

• Do engagement patterns differ across platforms and scientific disciplines?
• How do communication styles vary by platform and discipline?

The Methods

How Do You Measure a Viral Post? 

To explore these questions, the researchers identified popular science communicators in three ways: a marketing analytic tool (HypeAuditor), AI language models (Chat GPT-4), and hashtag searches. From these searches, they selected a total of 60 science communication profiles spanning five fields: arts and humanities, social sciences, health science, experimental sciences, and engineering.  Then, they collected key performance indicators (KPIs) such as likes, comments, and overall engagement from the top 20 posts from each profile. Additionally, they transcribed the videos and used AI-assisted sentiment analysis to analyze the emotional tone of the content, assessing the level of polarity (positive, neutral, or negative tone), agreement (consistency of emotions), subjectivity, irony, and confidence. 

The Results

The Secrets to Shareable Science 

1. Where You Post Matters 

One of the clearest takeaways from the study is that there is no single formula  – what works is heavily dependent on where it is posted and that specific audience. In terms of overall engagement (measured by likes, comments  and reactions), TikTok was the highest, followed by Instagram and then YouTube. 

Across platforms, researchers found clear differences in the emotional tone of science content. On TikTok, a more neutral to slightly negative polarity was prominent, along with higher objectivity and agreement. In contrast, Instagram posts favored positive polarity and greater subjectivity across content, hashtags and slogans. YouTube content showed more negative polarity, subjectivity, and elements of irony, suggesting a different tone of engagement. 

2. Make Tone Part of Your Strategy 

Across all platforms, posts with positive polarity (optimistic or engaging tone), moderate subjectivity (more conversational, not purely technical tone) and clear agreement (consistent messaging) perform better. Highly technical or strictly neutral language was not associated with top-performing posts, suggesting that audiences respond more to content that feels interpreted rather than presented. 

3. Each Discipline Has Its Own Language

The study also examined variation in sentiment across different disciplines. Health Sciences content tended to combine positive polarity with moderate subjectivity and high agreement, leading to clear, accessible messaging that resonantes with broad audiences. Experimental sciences showed a balance of positive polarity and objectivity in maintaining clarity while engaging interest. Social sciences exhibited  high subjectivity and the occasional use of irony, reflecting their interpretive nature and connection to human behavior and issues. Arts and humanities content demonstrated the highest in subjectivity, often incorporating nuances or interpretive tones with more variability in polarity. In contrast, engineering content leaned towards neutral polarity, higher objectivity and minimal irony. 

4. Beyond Metrics

However, there are important limitations to keep in mind. The study focuses only on a limited number of top-performing posts from a single time period, meaning it captures what success looks like at its peak and cannot account for how trends or how platform algorithms change over time. Additionally, while engagement metrics such as views, likes, and comments are useful indicators of reach, they don’t necessarily reflect understanding or learning.

The Impact 

Different Apps, Different Rules 

As social media becomes a primary source of scientific information, understanding how science spreads online is increasingly important. This study offers a useful framework for thinking about science communication as a combination of engagement metrics and sentiment. The authors argue that this approach can help researchers and communicators better understand how scientific information gains visibility in algorithm-driven environments. 

At the same time, the findings highlight a broader shift in science communication: success online depends not only on accuracy, but on how well content aligns with platform norms and audience expectations. For scientists and communicators, this means that effective outreach requires adapting how information is framed and delivered.

Taken together, the study provides valuable insights into how science gains visibility online but also underscores an open question: does engagement translate to meaningful understanding?

—

Written by Anika Zaman

Edited by Brita Kilburg-Basnyat and Crystal K. Hrelic Colón

Header photo by www.kaboompics.com from Pexels: https://www.pexels.com/photo/person-using-cellphone-6255898/Wr