Zhichao Fang

Er-Te Zheng, Hui-Zhen Fu, Xiaorui Jiang et al.

Post-publication peer review (PPPR) has emerged as an important supplement to traditional peer review, with social media playing a growing role in publicising potential problems in published research. However, it remains unclear whether social media discussions of retracted articles primarily reflect good practices, such as exposing flaws and acknowledging retraction status, or bad practices, such as overlooking retractions and continuing to disseminate scientific misinformation. In this study, we collected Bluesky posts referencing scholarly articles from Altmetric and retrieved metadata for the referenced articles using OpenAlex. The final dataset included 284 retracted articles with 79 pre-retraction posts and 857 post-retraction posts, 59 retraction notices with 186 posts, and 609,461 non-retracted articles with 1,344,756 posts. We manually coded Bluesky posts discussing retracted articles to identify instances of good and bad practice. The results show that posts demonstrating good practice (89.9%) substantially outnumbered those demonstrating bad practice (10.1%). Posts reflecting good practice also had more user engagement. In the pre-retraction phase, good practice posts constituted a slight minority (43.0%), whereas in the post-retraction phase they were dominant (94.2%). Most negative posts in the pre-retraction phase (90.0%) had good practice while only 17.3% positive posts in the post-retraction phase showed bad practice. Thus, sentiment analysis can be helpful to filter posts that could flag potential flaws before retraction, but it may struggle to accurately identify the spread of misinformation after retraction. More broadly, this study highlights the potential of Bluesky to support responsible scientific communication, public scrutiny, and research integrity.

Zohreh Zahedi, Yanqing Zhang, Zekun Han et al.

Organisational accounts are an integral part of the Twitter (now X) ecosystem. This study identified 9,842 research- and policy-related organisational accounts that had tweeted about scholarly publications by linking three global organisational databases (GRID, ROR, and Overton) with two altmetric databases containing Twitter data (Altmetric and the former Crossref Event Data). The resulting openly available dataset was used to examine organisational activity in scholarly communication across three dimensions: social media capital, tweeting activity, and engagement level. The results show that, compared to all Twitter users engaged in scholarly communication, organisational accounts hold a notable advantage in terms of follower bases and the proportion of scholarly tweets. Their scholarly tweets achieve high visibility through likes and retweets but perform weakly in generating more conversational forms of engagement, such as quotes and replies. Distinct patterns emerge across organisational categories: research facilities, in particular, demonstrate the strongest focus on scholarly tweeting, whereas government accounts are comparatively more successful in eliciting engagement across all metrics, including the more interactive ones. This study contributes both an open dataset of organisational accounts and a methodological framework for their identification, while also highlighting the important roles that organisations play in shaping scholarly discourse on social media.

Jiayi Li, Chengxi Yan, Yurong Zeng et al.

Digital Humanities (DH) is an interdisciplinary field that integrates computational methods with humanities scholarship to investigate innovative topics. Each academic discipline follows a unique developmental path shaped by the topics researchers investigate and the methods they employ. With the help of bibliometric analysis, most of previous studies have examined DH across multiple dimensions such as research hotspots, co-author networks, and institutional rankings. However, these studies have often been limited in their ability to provide deep insights into the current state of technological advancements and topic development in DH. As a result, their conclusions tend to remain superficial or lack interpretability in understanding how methods and topics interrelate in the field. To address this gap, this study introduced a new concept of Topic-Method Composition (TMC), which refers to a hybrid knowledge structure generated by the co-occurrence of specific research topics and the corresponding method. Especially by analyzing the interaction between TMCs, we can see more clearly the intersection and integration of digital technology and humanistic subjects in DH. Moreover, this study developed a TMC-based workflow combining bibliometric analysis, topic modeling, and network analysis to analyze the development characteristics and patterns of research disciplines. By applying this workflow to large-scale bibliometric data, it enables a detailed view of the knowledge structures, providing a tool adaptable to other fields.

Er-Te Zheng, Hui-Zhen Fu, Mike Thelwall et al.

Timely detection of problematic research is essential for safeguarding scientific integrity. To explore whether social media commentary can serve as an early indicator of potentially problematic articles, this study analysed 3,815 tweets referencing 604 retracted articles and 3,373 tweets referencing 668 comparable non-retracted articles. Tweets critical of the articles were identified through both human annotation and large language models (LLMs). Human annotation revealed that 8.3% of retracted articles were associated with at least one critical tweet prior to retraction, compared to only 1.5% of non-retracted articles, highlighting the potential of tweets as early warning signals of retraction. However, critical tweets identified by LLMs (GPT-4o mini, Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite, and Claude 3.5 Haiku) only partially aligned with human annotation, suggesting that fully automated monitoring of post-publication discourse should be applied with caution. A human-AI collaborative approach may offer a more reliable and scalable alternative, with human expertise helping to filter out tweets critical of issues unrelated to the research integrity of the articles. Overall, this study provides insights into how social media signals, combined with generative AI technologies, may support efforts to strengthen research integrity.

Xianwen Wang, Zhichao Fang

In this study, following the idea of our previous paper (Wang, et al., 2013a), we improve the method to detect and track hot topics in a specific field by using the real-time article usage data. With the "usage count" data provided by Web of Science, we take the field of computational neuroscience as an example to make analysis. About 10 thousand articles in the field of Computational Neuroscience are queried in Web of Science, when the records, including the usage count data of each paper, have been harvested and updated weekly from October 19, 2015 to March 21, 2016. The hot topics are defined by the most frequently used keywords aggregated from the articles. The analysis reveals that hot topics in Computational Neuroscience are related to the key technologies, like "fmri", "eeg", "erp", etc. Furthermore, using the weekly updated data, we track the dynamical changes of the topics. The characteristic of immediacy of usage data makes it possible to track the "heat" of hot topics timely and dynamically.

Xianwen Wang, Shenmeng Xu, Zhichao Fang

In this study, we propose a novel way to explore the patterns of people's visits to academic articles. About 3.4 million links to referral source of visitors of 1432 papers published in the journal of PeerJ are collected and analyzed. We find that at least 57% visits are from external referral sources, among which General Search Engine, Social Network, and News & Blog are the top three categories of referrals. Academic Resource, including academic search engines and academic publishers' sites, is the fourth largest category of referral sources. In addition, our results show that Google contributes significantly the most in directing people to scholarly articles. This encompasses the usage of Google the search engine, Google Scholar the academic search engine, and diverse specific country domains of them. Focusing on similar disciplines to PeerJ's publication scope, NCBI is the academic search engine on which people are the most frequently directed to PeerJ. Correlation analysis and regression analysis indicates that papers with more mentions are expected to have more visitors, and Facebook, Twitter and Reddit are the most commonly used social networking tools that refer people to PeerJ.

Xianwen Wang, Chen Liu, Wenli Mao et al.

In this study, we compare the difference in the impact between open access (OA) and non-open access (non-OA) articles. 1761 Nature Communications articles published from 1 Jan. 2012 to 31 Aug. 2013 are selected as our research objects, including 587 OA articles and 1174 non-OA articles. Citation data and daily updated article-level metrics data are harvested directly from the platform of nature.com. Data is analyzed from the static versus temporal-dynamic perspectives. The OA citation advantage is confirmed, and the OA advantage is also applicable when extending the comparing from citation to article views and social media attention. More important, we find that OA papers not only have the great advantage of total downloads, but also have the feature of keeping sustained and steady downloads for a long time. For article downloads, non-OA papers only have a short period of attention, when the advantage of OA papers exists for a much longer time.