Er-Te Zheng

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.

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.