Filled bars indicate traditional methodologies and unfilled bars indicate online methodologies. Data sources are as follows: 1. estimate; 2. estimate; 3. Scientific American (http://bit.ly/Z0dkaF); 4. San Diego Union-Tribune (http://bit.ly/WusyhV); 5. New York Times (http://bit.ly/14aktDi); 6. Twitter (http://tcrn.ch/146wWsy); 7. Wordpress (http://bit.ly/WVBwDa); 8. Facebook (http://bit.ly/10xUemL). Numbers reflect the potential monthly audience for each medium, and not necessarily the number of users who access a particular content item on that medium. All data accessed on January 22, 2013 and normalized to monthly views.

In the age of the internet, social media tools offer a powerful way for scientists to boost their professional profile and act as a public voice for science. Although the type of online conversations and shared content can vary widely, scientists are increasingly using social media as a way to share journal articles, advertise their thoughts and scientific opinions, post updates from conferences and meetings, and circulate information about professional opportunities and upcoming events. Google searches now represent the standard approach for discovering information about a topic or person—whether it be search committees collecting information about faculty candidates, graduate students searching out prospective labs, or journalists on the hunt for an expert source. Consequently, in today's technology-driven world, lack of an online presence can severely limit a researcher's visibility, and runs the risk that undesirable search results appear before desirable ones (however, this scenario is easily rectified; see Box 2). A growing body of evidence suggests that public visibility and constructive conversation on social media networks can be beneficial for scientists, impacting research in a number of key ways.

The internet represents an increasingly vast toolbox, and it can be difficult to choose among the long list of “core” resources (Box 1). For those starting out, it is critical to first define what you want to achieve, and then set out to use the tools that are best targeted toward this goal (Figure 2 provides an overview flowchart to help initially define these goals, while Figure 3 lists some common fears for new users); online tools are most effective when customized and used for a specific purpose (http://bit.ly/13J7AAS). Do you want to disseminate information about a discrete event, such as a field expedition? Do you want to build a community of your scientific peers? Do you want to communicate your science to a nonscientist audience? To save time and target the most efficient resources, it is important to think about the timeline of your goals and the time commitment you are willing or able to make. In addition, each social media portal offers unique features, which can complement each other when content is shared between sites.

The next step is to choose online tools that will be maximally beneficial for your specific needs. Blog posts are long form and long-term projects. They require greater initial time investments—crafting and editing posts can take hours—but blog content can be widely disseminated, linked via search engine terms, and provide an “expert” information source that is accessible for years to come. At Deep Sea News, a marine science blog where HMB and MCG are both scientific contributors (http://deepseanews.com), website analytics reveal that most users arrive at the blog via generalized search queries such as “deep sea” and are directed to archived posts with informative content. For example, a January 2011 post entitled “Deep Sea 101: What is the Deep Sea?” is a popular search engine–driven entry point to the blog.

Twitter, on the other hand, is short form and ephemeral—its true appeal lies in the zeitgeist. Twitter users share information and converse in real time, such as through discussions that occur while following a live event (conference talks or workshop discussions tagged with unique keywords, referred to as hashtags; see Box 1) or while remotely participating in a shared activity (e.g., #FridayNightScience, an online outlet for escaping the often-solitary nature of scientific research). Users should note that Twitter itself quickly archives “old” content—for example, tweets amalgamated under a popular conference hashtag may no longer be visible or accessible via searches after a few days. To some extent, using tweet-timing tools (e.g., http://bufferapp.com) can be harnessed to maximize viewership. When Twitter is used correctly, participants should feel that they have an up-to-the-minute personalized news feed and are participating in relevant and meaningful conversations.

Regardless of the platform, social media interactions require two-way conversations (see Box 2). Joining one of the many preexisting scientific conversations can simultaneously disseminate your own content, expand your online network, and raise your professional visibility. An easy entry point is the ScienceOnline conglomerate (http://scienceonline.com), an enthusiastic group of science communicators ranging from tenured professors to freelance journalists [9],[11],[12].

Social media and internet-based resources are increasingly ubiquitous. Thus, there is a pressing need for scientific institutions to offer formalized training opportunities for graduate students and tenured faculty alike to learn how to effectively use this new technology. Such training should address common misconceptions about social media platforms and help researchers identify an online repertoire that works best for their specific needs and goals. Organizations such as COMPASS (http://www.compassonline.org) can be called in to offer social media training workshops for scientists, and books such as Escape from the Ivory Tower [13] are succinct reference texts offering advice and guidance for interacting with a variety of media sources.

One barrier impacting tool adoption and training opportunities is the fact that online tools are commonly viewed as “uncharted territory.” The novelty of these resources often clouds our understanding of their measurable impacts and long-term utility, particularly in regards to research productivity and science communication/education efforts. In order to understand and refine online tools, appropriate and quantitative metrics are needed. Without high-quality data, it will be impossible to understand the true reach of these tools and discover the most effective uses of different platforms. The altmetrics movement (http://bit.ly/W3gRAD) has sprung up in response to this scenario, aiming to provide a means to measure the true impact of scientific research (social media discussion, journalistic coverage, etc.), as opposed to the perceived value of the venue (e.g., a journal) where research findings may be published. New tools for tracking a researcher's output include Google Scholar profiles (http://scholar.google.com), ImpactStory (http://impactstory.org), and the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) initiative (http://orcid.org). In addition, publishers such as PLOS are increasingly offering article-level metrics that log the number of article views, PDF downloads, social media discussions, and associated blog/media coverage.

Social media continues to evolve, grow, and undergo metamorphosis. The use of online tools and cutting-edge technology is growing among scientists, but their adoption and acceptance remains limited across the wider research community. In a 2011 study, only 2.5% of UK and US academics had established a Twitter account [14]. As the benefits become more apparent and dedicated metrics are developed to supplement scientists' portfolios, social media may soon become an integral part of the researcher's toolkit.