ArticlePLoS biology2017
Practices and promises of Facebook for science outreach: Becoming a "Nerd of Trust".
Article in PLoS biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- When Matilda shows up: The double-edged impact of women researchers' media visibility in management science.PloS one · 2026Article
- Virtual dentistry strategy to enhance knowledge, attitudes, and practices in selecting sweetened ultra-processed foods.PloS one · 2024Article
- Mapping automatic social media information disorder. The role of bots and AI in spreading misleading information in society.PloS one · 2024Article
- Student responses to creative coding in biomedical science education.Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology · 2023Article
- Online Health (Mis)Information: The Role of Medical Students.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Evaluating Sources of Continuing Education and Professional Development Used by Behavior Analysts.Behavior analysis in practice · 2022Article
- Social Media and the Transformation of the Physician-Patient Relationship: Viewpoint.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Broadening the impact of plant science through innovative, integrative, and inclusive outreach.Plant direct · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Information Management in Healthcare and Environment: Towards an Automatic System for Fake News Detection.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Using interpersonal communication strategies to encourage science conversations on social media.PloS one · 2020Article
- Combatting Pseudoscience: A Science and Health Literacy Workshop to Improve Scientific Literacy in 16-Year-Old Students in Malaysia.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2019Article
- Innovative teaching in the digital age goes viral.Nature microbiology · 2019Article
- Article
- Scientific Twitter: The flow of paleontological communication across a topic network.PloS one · 2019Article
- Experience With the Use of an Online Community on Facebook for Brazilian Patients With Gestational Trophoblastic Disease: Netnography Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Ten simple rules for drawing scientific comics.PLoS computational biology · 2018Article
- Possibilities and Pitfalls of Social Media for Translational Medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 2018Article
- Risks and benefits of Twitter use by hematologists/oncologists in the era of digital medicine.Seminars in hematology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Arguably, the dissemination of science communication has recently entered a new age in which science must compete for public attention with fake news, alternate facts, and pseudoscience. This clash is particularly evident on social media. Facebook has taken a prime role in disseminating fake news, alternate facts, and pseudoscience, but is often ignored in the context of science outreach, especially among individual scientists. Based on new survey data, scientists appear in large Facebook networks but seldom post information about general science, their own scientific research, or culturally controversial topics in science. The typical individual scientist's audience is large and personally connected, potentially leading to both a broad and deep engagement in science. Moreover, this media values individual expertise, allowing scientists to serve as a "Nerd of Trust" for their online friend and family networks. Science outreach via social media demands a renewed interest, and Facebook may be an overlooked high-return, low-risk science outreach tool in which scientists can play a valuable role to combat disinformation.
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.