ArticlePLoS biology2020
Quantifying and contextualizing the impact of bioRxiv preprints through automated social media audience segmentation.
Article in PLoS biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Preprint Problem: Fringe, Genetically Informed Studies of Group Differences in Behavior Housed on Open Science Platforms.Behavior genetics · 2026Article
- Power and Limitations of Inferring Genetic Ancestry.Annals of human genetics · 2025Review
- Social and Behavioral Genomics: On the Ethics of the Research and Its Downstream Applications.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2025Review
- The methodological and ethical concerns of genetic studies of same-sex sexual behavior.American journal of human genetics · 2024Review
- The clinical, mechanistic, and social impacts of air pollution on atopic dermatitis.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2024Review
- Feminist retroviruses to white Sharia: Gender "science fan fiction" on 4Chan.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Article
- Race science without racists: how bigoted paradigms persist in allergy research.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Typological thinking in human genomics research contributes to the production and prominence of scientific racism.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Addressing the ethical and societal challenges posed by genome-wide association studies of behavioral and brain-related traits.Nature neuroscience · 2023Review
- Wrestling with Social and Behavioral Genomics: Risks, Potential Benefits, and Ethical Responsibility.The Hastings Center report · 2023Article
- Genetic determinism, essentialism and reductionism: semantic clarity for contested science.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2023Review
- Article
- Article
- Forecasting the publication and citation outcomes of COVID-19 preprints.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Reporting preprints in the media during the COVID-19 pandemic.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2022Article
- The apportionment of citations: a scientometric analysis of Lewontin 1972.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Examining linguistic shifts between preprints and publications.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- The first six years of meta-research at PLOS Biology.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Who tweets climate change papers? investigating publics of research through users' descriptions.PloS one · 2022Article
- Psychologists update their beliefs about effect sizes after replication studies.Nature human behaviour · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Engagement with scientific manuscripts is frequently facilitated by Twitter and other social media platforms. As such, the demographics of a paper's social media audience provide a wealth of information about how scholarly research is transmitted, consumed, and interpreted by online communities. By paying attention to public perceptions of their publications, scientists can learn whether their research is stimulating positive scholarly and public thought. They can also become aware of potentially negative patterns of interest from groups that misinterpret their work in harmful ways, either willfully or unintentionally, and devise strategies for altering their messaging to mitigate these impacts. In this study, we collected 331,696 Twitter posts referencing 1,800 highly tweeted bioRxiv preprints and leveraged topic modeling to infer the characteristics of various communities engaging with each preprint on Twitter. We agnostically learned the characteristics of these audience sectors from keywords each user's followers provide in their Twitter biographies. We estimate that 96% of the preprints analyzed are dominated by academic audiences on Twitter, suggesting that social media attention does not always correspond to greater public exposure. We further demonstrate how our audience segmentation method can quantify the level of interest from nonspecialist audience sectors such as mental health advocates, dog lovers, video game developers, vegans, bitcoin investors, conspiracy theorists, journalists, religious groups, and political constituencies. Surprisingly, we also found that 10% of the preprints analyzed have sizable (>5%) audience sectors that are associated with right-wing white nationalist communities. Although none of these preprints appear to intentionally espouse any right-wing extremist messages, cases exist in which extremist appropriation comprises more than 50% of the tweets referencing a given preprint. These results present unique opportunities for improving and contextualizing the public discourse surrounding scientific research.
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.