Critical social media posts linked to retractions of scientific papers

"Posts on social-media platform X that are critical of scientific research can act as early warning signs of problematic articles, according to two large studies. The findings reflect how post-publication commentary can help to identify errors or fraudulent results, say scientists. Previous research has shown that potentially problematic articles get substantial attention on social media before being formally retracted, and receive more attention than do similar articles that do not get retracted. Er-Te Zheng, a PhD student studying computational social science at the University of Sheffield, UK, wanted to find out whether social-media platforms such as X could be used to identify integrity issues in articles."

"Zheng and his colleagues examined thousands of tweets that referenced articles that went on to be retracted and articles that didn't. Of the 604 studies that went on to be retracted, the researchers found that 8.3% had at least one critical post on X before retraction, compared with only 1.5% of articles that were not retracted. Zheng and his colleagues defined critical tweets as posts that contained sarcasm, criticism, accusations or doubt about the article. They say that nearly 1 in 12 of the retracted articles could have been flagged to publishers for greater scrutiny on the basis of the social-media posts."

"Another analysis looked at whether the sentiment of tweets or inclusion of retraction-related terms influenced how quickly a paper was retracted. Hajar Sotudeh, who studies academic publishing at Shiraz University in Iran, and her colleagues analysed 1,200 retracted papers that were published between 2019 and 2022, and 16,500 posts on X about those papers. The researchers found that negative sentiment in tweets and the inclusion of any of 95 'red flag' words - such as fraud, retract, hoax or flawed - were associated with an increased risk that the paper would be retracted."

Social-media posts on X that critique scientific research can act as early warning signs of problematic or fraudulent articles. One analysis of 604 studies found 8.3% of retracted papers had at least one critical post on X before retraction, versus 1.5% for non-retracted papers, indicating nearly one in twelve retracted articles could have been flagged for scrutiny. A separate analysis of 1,200 retracted papers and 16,500 X posts found that negative tweet sentiment and use of 95 identified red-flag words correlated with an increased likelihood of retraction.

Read at Nature