The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review

Abstract

Using the "#arseniclife" controversy as a case study, we examine the roles of blogs and Twitter in post-publication review. The controversy was initiated by a scientific article about bacteria able to substitute arsenic for phosphorus in its genetic material. We present the debate chronologically, using prominent online media to reconstruct the events. Using tweets that discussed the controversy, we conducted quantitative sentiment analysis to examine skeptical and non-skeptical tones on Twitter. Critiques of and studies refuting the arsenic life hypothesis were publicized on blogs before formal publication in traditional academic spaces and were shared on Twitter, influencing issue salience among a range of audiences. This case exemplifies the role of new media in informal post-publication peer review, which can complement traditional peer review processes. The implications drawn from this case study for future conduct and transparency of both formal and informal peer review are discussed.

Social scholarship revisited: Changing scholarly practices in the age of social media

“…As one illustrative case, Yeo and colleagues () investigated the role of Twitter and blogs in pre‐ and post‐publication review through a case study of the #arseniclife controversy on Twitter. They explored how tweets indicated skeptical and non‐skeptical views of a scientific article that claimed bacteria could replace phosphorus for arsenic in its genetic material (see Wolfe‐Simon et al , ).…”

“…Concerns with informal review are that nonspecialists, journalists and social media influencers (ie, those with large followings) can shape conversation in misleading or unwarranted ways, all within public view. On the other hand, advantages of informal review, as a complement to formal peer review, are its transparency and openness, allowing a wider, heterogeneous audience of interested people to observe, participate, become informed, raise attention, sustain the dialog, mobilize and confirm results or surface inaccuracies (Yeo et al , ). If educational technology has been largely shaped by what Bernstein () called horizontal discourse —the everyday, oral, local and context‐dependent modes of communication—than this discourse is also essential for the future of educational technology design and research.…”

Evolution in the Correction of the Literature: Preprints, Manuscript Versioning, Error Amendment, and Retract and Replace

“…Such volatile positioning by highly powerful and influential groups such as COPE damages the integrity of the STEM publishing system that academics are expected to respect and abide by. Although social media such as Twitter and blogs can certainly raise awareness and discussion about a published paper (Yeo et al, 2017), in cases where valid criticisms merit corrections, but where corrections are not made, or are not permitted by the journal because of editorial policy (e.g., letters to the editor are not published), then indeed an amendment policy would be required.…”

Amending published articles: time to rethink retractions and corrections?

“…Historically, some printed journals used to distinguish between errata and corrigenda, according to whether the author or the journal introduced the error -a now meaningless and poorly understood distinction. In other situations it has become more common recently that a comment, editorial or blog (or sometimes many tweets and blogs [2]) may be helpful in providing commentary with or without a correction to the article itself. Letters to the editors also have a long tradition as a place for signed criticism, (e.g.…”