ArticlePloS one2015
Science vs conspiracy: collective narratives in the age of misinformation.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
88 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Conversational Dynamics in Scientific and Pseudoscientific Health Communities on YouTube: Process Mining and Network Analysis Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Ideology and polarization set the agenda on social media.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Role of Influencers and Echo Chambers in the Diffusion of Vaccine Misinformation: Opinion Mining in a Taiwanese Online Community.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Modularity of Online Social Networks and COVID-19 Misinformation Spreading in Russia: Combining Social Network Analysis and National Representative Survey.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Social media and the spread of misinformation: infectious and a threat to public health.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Evaluating the effect of viral posts on social media engagement.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Understanding and Combating Misinformation: An Evolutionary Perspective.JMIR infodemiology · 2024Article
- Conceptualizing platformed conspiracism: Analytical framework and empirical case study of BitChute and Gab.New media & society · 2024Article
- Voters distrust delayed election results, but a prebunking message inoculates against distrust.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to identify the psychological factors associated with conspiracy theory beliefs online.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Article
- People see what they want to see: an EEG study.Cognitive neurodynamics · 2024Article
- Article
- Cross-platform social dynamics: an analysis of ChatGPT and COVID-19 vaccine conversations.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- How to distinguish climate sceptics, antivaxxers, and persistent sceptics: Evidence from a multi-country survey of public attitudes.PloS one · 2024Article
- Is resistance to Covid-19 vaccination a "problem"? A critical policy inquiry of vaccine mandates for healthcare workers.AIMS public health · 2024Article
- The Relationship Between Social Media Information Sharing Characteristics and Problem Behaviors Among Chinese College Students Under Recommendation Algorithms.Psychology research and behavior management · 2024Article
- Ayahuasca: A review of historical, pharmacological, and therapeutic aspects.PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2023Review
- (Why) Is Misinformation a Problem?Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023Article
28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The large availability of user provided contents on online social media facilitates people aggregation around shared beliefs, interests, worldviews and narratives. In spite of the enthusiastic rhetoric about the so called collective intelligence unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories-e.g., chemtrails, reptilians or the Illuminati-are pervasive in online social networks (OSN). In this work we study, on a sample of 1.2 million of individuals, how information related to very distinct narratives-i.e. main stream scientific and conspiracy news-are consumed and shape communities on Facebook. Our results show that polarized communities emerge around distinct types of contents and usual consumers of conspiracy news result to be more focused and self-contained on their specific contents. To test potential biases induced by the continued exposure to unsubstantiated rumors on users' content selection, we conclude our analysis measuring how users respond to 4,709 troll information-i.e. parodistic and sarcastic imitation of conspiracy theories. We find that 77.92% of likes and 80.86% of comments are from users usually interacting with conspiracy stories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.