Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32960891›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2020

Quantifying and contextualizing the impact of bioRxiv preprints through automated social media audience segmentation.

Jedidiah Carlson, Kelley Harris

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
18.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Feminist retroviruses to white Sharia: Gender "science fan fiction" on 4Chan.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Reporting preprints in the media during the COVID-19 pandemic.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2022
    Article
  16. The apportionment of citations: a scientometric analysis of Lewontin 1972.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jedidiah CarlsonDepartment of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1363-872X
Kelley HarrisDepartment of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0302-2523
University of Washington · US

Funding

Investigating the landscape and genetic architecture of germline mutagenesisR35GM133428 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Kelley Harris · 2019 to 2026
$2.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM133428
6 · The paper itself

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

Databases as TopicPublicationsScienceSocial ChangeSocial MediaAcademies and InstitutesAccess to InformationElectronic Data ProcessingHumansInformation LiteracyInternetPolitical ActivismPreprints as Topic

Identifiers

PMID32960891
PMCPMC7508356
OpenAlexW3088297402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.