ArticleJournal of computational social science2022
Characterizing the roles of bots on Twitter during the COVID-19 infodemic.
Article in Journal of computational social science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Food Access in New York City During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Social Media Monitoring Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Unraveling the Use of Disinformation Hashtags by Social Bots During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Social Networks Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Topics in Antivax and Provax Discourse: Yearlong Synoptic Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Tweets.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Public Opinion Manipulation on Social Media: Social Network Analysis of Twitter Bots during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Assessing the Role of Social Bots During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Infodemic, Disagreement, and Criticism.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Bots' Activity on COVID-19 Pro and Anti-Vaccination Networks: Analysis of Spanish-Written Messages on Twitter.Vaccines · 2022Article
- (Re)shaping online narratives: when bots promote the message of President Trump during his first impeachment.PeerJ. Computer science · 2022Article
- Political polarization on Twitter during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study in Brazil.Social network analysis and mining · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An infodemic is an emerging phenomenon caused by an overabundance of information online. This proliferation of information makes it difficult for the public to distinguish trustworthy news and credible information from untrustworthy sites and non-credible sources. The perils of an infodemic debuted with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and bots (i.e., automated accounts controlled by a set of algorithms) that are suspected of spreading the infodemic. Although previous research has revealed that bots played a central role in spreading misinformation during major political events, how bots behavior during the infodemic is unclear. In this paper, we examined the roles of bots in the case of the COVID-19 infodemic and the diffusion of non-credible information such as "5G" and "Bill Gates" conspiracy theories and content related to "Trump" and "WHO" by analyzing retweet networks and retweeted items. We show the segregated topology of their retweet networks, which indicates that right-wing self-media accounts and conspiracy theorists may lead to this opinion cleavage, while malicious bots might favor amplification of the diffusion of non-credible information. Although the basic influence of information diffusion could be larger in human users than bots, the effects of bots are non-negligible under an infodemic situation. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42001-021-00139-3.
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.