Science discussions of retracted articles on Bluesky: public scrutiny or misinformation spreading?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.04334v1
• Date: Tue, 05 May 2026 22:41:04 GMT
• Title: Science discussions of retracted articles on Bluesky: public scrutiny or misinformation spreading?
• Abstract summary: Post-publication peer review has emerged as an important supplement to traditional peer review.<n>It remains unclear whether social media discussions of retracted articles primarily reflect good practices.<n>We manually coded Bluesky posts discussing retracted articles to identify instances of good and bad practice.
• Score: 5.065311321920548
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• ReGround: Grounding Reviewer Comments in Multimodal Evidence [65.14860452709777]
  Reviewer comments naturally relate to specific parts of the reviewed paper, yet grounding these comments to the underlying evidence is difficult due to long multimodal documents.<n>We introduce ReGround, a large-scale dataset for reviewer comment grounding that links 10,267 reviewer comments to 16,274 evidence in the original anonymous submission of 3,656 papers.<n>Results show that retrieval over the entire paper content performs poorly, evidence-type inference is a major bottleneck, and multimodal evidence provides complementary signals that text alone misses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T12:32:58Z)
• Students' Perceptions of Peer Grading [0.8941624592392746]
  We conducted a mixed-source thematic analysis of literature and student discussions on Reddit.<n>The study synthesized evidence from 107 papers, 114 Reddit posts, and 300 comments.<n>Students view peer grading as both beneficial and problematic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-13T02:46:09Z)
• When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee? [73.47745294608072]
  We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level.<n>We use two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T08:03:32Z)
• Decoupling Scores and Text: The Politeness Principle in Peer Review [0.0]
  Authors often struggle to interpret peer review feedback, deriving false hope from polite comments or feeling confused by specific low scores.<n>We construct a dataset of over 30,000 ICLR 2021-2025 submissions and compare acceptance prediction performance using numerical scores versus text reviews.<n>Our experiments reveal a significant performance gap: score-based models achieve 91% accuracy, while text-based models reach only 81% even with large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-23T11:58:48Z)
• How is science discussed on Bluesky? [4.486976696247063]
  This study presents the first large-scale analysis of scholarly article dissemination on Bluesky.<n>We collected and analysed over 2.6 million Bluesky posts referencing 532,302 scholarly articles from January 2023 to July 2025.<n>A sharp increase in scholarly activity on Bluesky was observed from November 2024 to January 2025, coinciding with broader academic shifts away from X.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-24T22:31:28Z)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review.<n>The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system.<n>We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• Can social media provide early warning of retraction? Evidence from critical tweets identified by human annotation and large language models [3.789359673129504]
  This study analysed 3,815 tweets referencing 604 retracted articles and 3,373 tweets referencing 668 comparable non-retracted articles.<n>Human annotation revealed that 8.3% of retracted articles were associated with at least one critical tweet prior to retraction.<n>This study provides insights into how social media signals, combined with generative AI technologies, may support efforts to strengthen research integrity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T15:15:09Z)
• "Here's Your Evidence": False Consensus in Public Twitter Discussions of COVID-19 Science [50.08057052734799]
  We estimate scientific consensus based on samples of abstracts from preprint servers. We find that anti-consensus posts and users, though overall less numerous than pro-consensus ones, are vastly over-represented on Twitter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T06:16:57Z)
• Tag-Aware Document Representation for Research Paper Recommendation [68.8204255655161]
  We propose a hybrid approach that leverages deep semantic representation of research papers based on social tags assigned by users. The proposed model is effective in recommending research papers even when the rating data is very sparse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-08T09:13:07Z)
• NeuS: Neutral Multi-News Summarization for Mitigating Framing Bias [54.89737992911079]
  We propose a new task, a neutral summary generation from multiple news headlines of the varying political spectrum. One of the most interesting observations is that generation models can hallucinate not only factually inaccurate or unverifiable content, but also politically biased content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T07:06:01Z)
• Correcting Exposure Bias for Link Recommendation [31.799185352323807]
  Exposure bias can arise when users are systematically underexposed to certain relevant items. We propose estimators that leverage known exposure probabilities to mitigate this bias. Our methods lead to greater diversity in the recommended papers' fields of study.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-13T16:51:41Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.