Twitter Engagement with Retracted Articles: Who, When, and How?

Abstract

Retracted research discussed on social media can spread misinformation, yet we lack an understanding of how retracted articles are mentioned by academic and non-academic users. This is especially relevant on Twitter due to the platform's prominent role in science communication. Here, we analyze the pre and post retraction differences in Twitter engagement metrics and content of mentions for over 3,800 retracted English-language articles alongside comparable non-retracted articles. We subset these findings according to the five user types detected by our supervised learning classifier: members of the public, scientists, bots, practitioners, and science communicators. We find that retracted articles receive greater overall engagement than non-retracted articles, especially among members of the public and bot users, the majority of engagement happening prior to retraction. Our results highlight non-scientists' involvement in retracted article discussions and suggest an opportunity for Twitter to include a retraction notice feature.

Comparative analysis of retracted pre-print and peer-reviewed articles on COVID-19

“…(Serghiou et al, 2021) But non-scienti c audiences and bots contribute to a large portion of the social media discussions of retracted articles, thus explaining the lack of a correlation between the time to retraction and the AAS. (Abhari et al, 2022) Another interesting point to note is the difference in the causes of retraction between preprints and peerreviewed articles. Some peer-reviewed articles have been retracted for reasons like fake peer review and duplication of articles, which exposes the faults of the peer-review process.…”

Comparative analysis of retracted pre-print and peer-reviewed articles on COVID-19

“…(Serghiou et al, 2021) But non-scientific audiences and bots contribute to a large portion of the social media discussions of retracted articles, thus explaining the lack of a correlation between the time to retraction and the AAS. (Abhari et al, 2022) . CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.…”

“…(Serghiou et al, 2021) But non-scientific audiences and bots contribute to a large portion of the social media discussions of retracted articles, thus explaining the lack of a correlation between the time to retraction and the AAS. (Abhari et al, 2022)…”

“…(Serghiou et al, 2021) But non-scientific audiences and bots contribute to a large portion of the social media discussions of retracted articles, thus explaining the lack of a correlation between the time to retraction and the AAS. (Abhari et al, 2022) Another interesting point to note is the difference in the causes of retraction between preprints and peer-reviewed articles. Some peer-reviewed articles have been retracted for reasons like fake peer review and duplication of articles, which exposes the faults of the peerreview process.…”