This study examines the social media uptake of scientific journals on two different platforms - X and WeChat - by comparing the adoption of X among journals indexed in the Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCIE) with the adoption of WeChat among journals indexed in the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD). The findings reveal substantial differences in platform adoption and user engagement, shaped by local contexts. While only 22.7% of SCIE journals maintain an X account, 84.4% of CSCD journals have a WeChat official account. Journals in Life Sciences & Biomedicine lead in uptake on both platforms, whereas those in Technology and Physical Sciences show high WeChat uptake but comparatively lower presence on X. User engagement on both platforms is dominated by low-effort interactions rather than more conversational behaviors. Correlation analyses indicate weak-to-moderate relationships between bibliometric indicators and social media metrics, confirming that online engagement reflects a distinct dimension of journal impact, whether on an international or a local platform. These findings underscore the need for broader social media metric frameworks that incorporate locally dominant platforms, thereby offering a more comprehensive understanding of science communication practices across diverse social media and contexts.

翻译：本研究通过比较科学引文索引扩展版（SCIE）收录期刊对X平台的采用情况与中国科学引文数据库（CSCD）收录期刊对微信平台的采用情况，考察了科学期刊在两种不同社交媒体平台上的采纳模式。研究发现，受本土情境影响，两个平台的采用率与用户参与度存在显著差异。仅22.7%的SCIE期刊拥有X账号，而84.4%的CSCD期刊则开通了微信公众号。生命科学与生物医学领域的期刊在两大平台上的采纳率均处于领先地位，而技术与物理科学领域的期刊在微信平台采纳率较高，在X平台上的存在感相对较低。两个平台的用户参与行为均以低投入互动为主，而非对话式深度交流。相关性分析显示，文献计量指标与社交媒体指标间仅存在弱至中等程度的相关性，这证实了线上参与度反映了期刊影响力的独立维度——无论是在国际平台还是本土平台上皆是如此。这些发现表明，需要构建更广泛的社交媒体计量框架，将本土主流平台纳入考量，从而更全面地理解跨社交媒体与跨情境的科学传播实践。