PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate practices of argumentation on Twitter discussions about climate change.Design/methodology/approachConversational threads were collected from the Twitter API. Fundamental concepts from argumentation theory and linking practices were operationalised through a coding schema for content analysis. Tweets were analysed in the context of the discussions and coded according to their argumentative approach, interaction type and argumentation stage. Linked and embedded sources were analysed in order to find how they were used in arguments, the plausibility and soundness of the message, the consistency and trustworthiness of the linked source and its adequacy with the target audience.FindingsAmong the interactions between arguers, this study found five typical practices and several patterns involving the dynamics of the conversations, the strategy of the argumentation and the linking practices. Although the rhetorical approach was prominent, the agreement was rarely achieved. The arguers used a variety of sources to justify or support their positions, often embedding non-textual content. These linking practices, together with the strategy adopted and the topics discussed, suggest the involvement of a multiple audience engaged in discussing ad lib scientific artefacts, topics and outputs.Originality/valueWhile Twitter has been the focus for many research papers, the conversational threads have been given little attention so far. With the Twitter API making conversations more accessible for research, this paper does not only give insight into multiple audience group argumentation dynamics but also provides a method to study the conversations from an argumentation theory perspective.

A method for studying use of scientific sources in arguments on Twitter is demonstrated. Data were collected from the Twitter API v. 2.0 using Focalevents, searching for tweets with links to DOIs, and then collecting conversations around these tweets. Analysis. Three conversations on different topics were analysed searching for argumentative behaviour, use of scientific sources, their reliability, consistency and adequacy in relation to the argument and the target audience. Both quantitative and qualitative content analysis based on argumentation theory were applied. The method allowed us to identify scientific publications used argumentatively by a multiple audience in the context of Twitter conversations. The publications were used to build scientific arguments, mainly, but not exclusively, from individual and collegial expert opinion. Scientific findings were often misinterpreted and used improperly to the benefit of the argument. Through the use of argumentation theory to study conversations in a structured way, the paper demonstrates how to approach the usage of scientific publications in arguments. Scientific publications were used to build scientific arguments from different types of expert opinion, for giving proofs for claims and ounter-arguments, and inconsistent or biased arguments from individual expert opinion.

PurposeThis study introduces Simone Weil's impersonal justice concept and its relevance to libraries' identity and role in societies. The article presents the constituents of impersonal justice and a theoretical justification for the coexistence of neutrality with libraries' commitment to social causes.Design/methodology/approachConceptual analysis of 3 Weil's works, 13 scientific articles and 12 libraries' official documents was applied, looking at relevant concepts and findings, contexts of use, arguments and types of authority.FindingsFive constituents of impersonal justice were found: universality, concreteness, unicity, inviolability and inappropriability. Impersonal justice, based on the inviolable value of each individual and the universal expectation of good, allows for a more accurate definition of social justice. Besides, it justifies libraries' commitment to climate change, migrants and Black lives matter, among other causes.Originality/valueIn contrast to previous works, this paper focuses on clarifying concepts by applying conceptual analysis to Weil's works, Library and Information Science (LIS) sources in scientific and normative contexts. Additionally, the analysis of arguments and types of authority for justifying claims pro and against neutrality allows the reconstruction of the argumentative discourse beyond the examined sources.