Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38239338›Full record

ArticleSocial media + society

Disclosure Standards for Social Media and Generative Artificial Intelligence Research: Toward Transparency and Replicability.

Ganna Kostygina, Yoonsang Kim, Zachary Seeskin, Felicia LeClere, Sherry Emery

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social media + society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Ganna KostyginaNORC at the University of Chicago, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8416-6168
Yoonsang KimNORC at the University of Chicago, USA.
Zachary SeeskinNORC at the University of Chicago, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8005-4521
Felicia LeClereNORC at the University of Chicago, USA.
Sherry EmeryNORC at the University of Chicago, USA.

Funding

Assessing the Effects of Cigar and Cigarillo Social Media Promotion on Tobacco and Marijuana UseR01CA248871 · NCI · NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER · PI KOSTYGINA, GANNA · 2021 to 2025
$3.3M
Assessing the Effects of Smokeless Tobacco Influencer Marketing in the Rapidly Changing Media EnvironmentR01CA234082 · NCI · NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER · PI KOSTYGINA, GANNA · 2019 to 2021
$1.5M
The Effects of Branded and Influencer Social Media Promotion of Flavored Tobacco Products (FTP) on FTP Use Among Youth and Young AdultsR01DA051000 · NIDA · NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER · PI EMERY, SHERRY L, KOSTYGINA, GANNA · 2021 to 2023
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA234082NCI NIH HHS R01 CA248871NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA051000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social media dominate today's information ecosystem and provide valuable information for social research. Market researchers, social scientists, policymakers, government entities, public health researchers, and practitioners recognize the potential for social data to inspire innovation, support products and services, characterize public opinion, and guide decisions. The appeal of mining these rich datasets is clear. However, there is potential risk of data misuse, underscoring an equally huge and fundamental flaw in the research: there are no procedural standards and little transparency. Transparency across the processes of collecting and analyzing social media data is often limited due to proprietary algorithms. Spurious findings and biases introduced by artificial intelligence (AI) demonstrate the challenges this lack of transparency poses for research. Social media research remains a virtual "wild west," with no clear standards for reporting regarding data retrieval, preprocessing steps, analytic methods, or interpretation. Use of emerging generative AI technologies to augment social media analytics can undermine validity and replicability of findings, potentially turning this research into a "black box" enterprise. Clear guidance for social media analyses and reporting is needed to assure the quality of the resulting research. In this article, we propose criteria for evaluating the quality of studies using social media data, grounded in established scientific practice. We offer clear documentation guidelines to ensure that social data are used properly and transparently in research and applications. A checklist of disclosure elements to meet minimal reporting standards is proposed. These criteria will make it possible for scholars and practitioners to assess the quality, credibility, and comparability of research findings using digital data.

Indexed as

disclosurereporting standardsreproducibilityscientific transparencysocial data quality

Identifiers

PMID38239338
PMCPMC10795517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.