Perceived experts are prevalent and influential within an antivaccine community on Twitter.

Perceived experts (i.e. medical professionals and biomedical scientists) are trusted sources of medical information who are especially effective at encouraging vaccine uptake. The role of perceived experts acting as potential antivaccine influencers has not been characterized systematically. We describe the prevalence and importance of antivaccine perceived experts by constructing a coengagement network of 7,720 accounts based on a Twitter data set containing over 4.2 million posts from April 2021. The coengagement network primarily broke into two large communities that differed in their stance toward COVID-19 vaccines, and misinformation was predominantly shared by the antivaccine community. Perceived experts had a sizable presence across the coengagement network, including within the antivaccine community where they were 9.8% of individual, English-language users. Perceived experts within the antivaccine community shared low-quality (misinformation) sources at similar rates and academic sources at higher rates compared to perceived nonexperts in that community. Perceived experts occupied important network positions as central antivaccine users and bridges between the antivaccine and provaccine communities. Using propensity score matching, we found that perceived expertise brought an influence boost, as perceived experts were significantly more likely to receive likes and retweets in both the antivaccine and provaccine communities. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the influence boost for perceived experts between the two communities. Social media platforms, scientific communications, and biomedical organizations may focus on more systemic interventions to reduce the impact of perceived experts in spreading antivaccine misinformation.

Selective and deceptive citation in the construction of dueling consensuses.

The COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to study science communication and, in particular, the transmission of consensus. In this study, we show how "science communicators," writ large to include both mainstream science journalists and practiced conspiracy theorists, transform scientific evidence into two dueling consensuses using the effectiveness of masks as a case study. We do this by compiling one of the largest, hand-coded citation datasets of cross-medium science communication, derived from 5 million Twitter posts of people discussing masks. We find that science communicators selectively uplift certain published works while denigrating others to create bodies of evidence that support and oppose masks, respectively. Anti-mask communicators in particular often use selective and deceptive quotation of scientific work and criticize opposing science more than pro-mask communicators. Our findings have implications for scientists, science communicators, and scientific publishers, whose systems of sharing (and correcting) knowledge are highly vulnerable to what we term adversarial science communication.

The role and influence of perceived experts in an anti-vaccine misinformation community.

The role of perceived experts (i.e., medical professionals and biomedical scientists) as potential anti-vaccine influencers has not been characterized systematically. We describe the prevalence and importance of anti-vaccine perceived experts by constructing a coengagement network based on a Twitter data set containing over 4.2 million posts from April 2021. The coengagement network primarily broke into two large communities that differed in their stance toward COVID-19 vaccines, and misinformation was predominantly shared by the anti-vaccine community. Perceived experts had a sizable presence within the anti-vaccine community and shared academic sources at higher rates compared to others in that community. Perceived experts occupied important network positions as central anti-vaccine nodes and bridges between the anti- and pro-vaccine communities. Perceived experts received significantly more engagements than other individuals within the anti- and pro-vaccine communities and there was no significant difference in the influence boost for perceived experts between the two communities. Interventions designed to reduce the impact of perceived experts who spread anti-vaccine misinformation may be warranted.

Gender-based homophily in collaborations across a heterogeneous scholarly landscape.

In this article, we investigate the role of gender in collaboration patterns by analyzing gender-based homophily-the tendency for researchers to co-author with individuals of the same gender. We develop and apply novel methodology to the corpus of JSTOR articles, a broad scholarly landscape, which we analyze at various levels of granularity. Most notably, for a precise analysis of gender homophily, we develop methodology which explicitly accounts for the fact that the data comprises heterogeneous intellectual communities and that not all authorships are exchangeable. In particular, we distinguish three phenomena which may affect the distribution of observed gender homophily in collaborations: a structural component that is due to demographics and non-gendered authorship norms of a scholarly community, a compositional component which is driven by varying gender representation across sub-disciplines and time, and a behavioral component which we define as the remainder of observed gender homophily after its structural and compositional components have been taken into account. Using minimal modeling assumptions, the methodology we develop allows us to test for behavioral homophily. We find that statistically significant behavioral homophily can be detected across the JSTOR corpus and show that this finding is robust to missing gender indicators in our data. In a secondary analysis, we show that the proportion of women representation in a field is positively associated with the probability of finding statistically significant behavioral homophily.

Does lower use of academic affiliation by university faculty in top U.S. newspapers contribute to misinformation about abortion?

BACKGROUND: University faculty are considered trusted sources of information to disseminate accurate information to the public that abortion is a common, safe and necessary medical health care service. However, misinformation persists about abortion's alleged dangers, commonality, and medical necessity. METHODS: Systematic review of popular media articles related to abortion, gun control (an equally controversial topic), and cigarette use (a more neutral topic) published in top U.S. newspapers between January 2015 and July 2020 using bivariate analysis and logistic regression to compare disclosure of university affiliation among experts in each topic area. RESULTS: We included 41 abortion, 102 gun control, and 130 smoking articles, which consisted of 304 distinct media mentions of university-affiliated faculty. Articles with smoking and gun control faculty experts had statistically more affiliations mentioned (90%, n = 195 and 88%, n = 159, respectively) than abortion faculty experts (77%, n = 54) (p = 0.02). The probability of faculty disclosing university affiliation was similar between smoking and gun control (p = 0.73), but between smoking and abortion was significantly less (Ave Marginal Effects - 0.13, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer faculty members disclose their university affiliation in top U.S. newspapers when discussing abortion. Lack of academic disclosure may paradoxically make these faculty appear less 'legitimate.' This leads to misinformation, branding abortion as a 'choice,' suggesting it is an unessential medical service. With the recent U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, and subsequent banning of abortion in many U.S. states, faculty will probably be even less likely to disclose their university affiliation in the media than in the past.

Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation.

Misinformation online poses a range of threats, from subverting democratic processes to undermining public health measures. Proposed solutions range from encouraging more selective sharing by individuals to removing false content and accounts that create or promote it. Here we provide a framework to evaluate interventions aimed at reducing viral misinformation online both in isolation and when used in combination. We begin by deriving a generative model of viral misinformation spread, inspired by research on infectious disease. By applying this model to a large corpus (10.5 million tweets) of misinformation events that occurred during the 2020 US election, we reveal that commonly proposed interventions are unlikely to be effective in isolation. However, our framework demonstrates that a combined approach can achieve a substantial reduction in the prevalence of misinformation. Our results highlight a practical path forward as misinformation online continues to threaten vaccination efforts, equity and democratic processes around the globe.

How do you solve a problem like misinformation?

Understanding key distinctions between misinformation/disinformation, speech/action, and mistaken belief/conviction provides an opportunity to expand research and policy toward more constructive online communication.

The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science.

Every year the National Institutes of Health allocates $10.7 billion (one-third of its funds) for clinical science research while the pharmaceutical companies spend $52.9 billion (90% of its annual budget). However, we know little about funder collaborations and the impact of collaboratively funded projects. As an initial effort towards this, we examine the co-funding network, where a funder represents a node and an edge signifies collaboration. Our core data include all papers that cite and receive citations by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, a prominent clinical review journal. We find that 65% of clinical papers have multiple funders and discover communities of funders that are formed by national boundaries and funding objectives. To quantify success in funding, we use a g-index metric that indicates efficiency of funders in supporting clinically relevant research. After controlling for authorship, we find that funders generally achieve higher success when collaborating than when solo-funding. We also find that as a funder, seeking multiple, direct connections with various disconnected funders may be more beneficial than being part of a densely interconnected network of co-funders. The results of this paper indicate that collaborations can potentially accelerate innovation, not only among authors but also funders.

Misinformation in and about science.

Humans learn about the world by collectively acquiring information, filtering it, and sharing what we know. Misinformation undermines this process. The repercussions are extensive. Without reliable and accurate sources of information, we cannot hope to halt climate change, make reasoned democratic decisions, or control a global pandemic. Most analyses of misinformation focus on popular and social media, but the scientific enterprise faces a parallel set of problems-from hype and hyperbole to publication bias and citation misdirection, predatory publishing, and filter bubbles. In this perspective, we highlight these parallels and discuss future research directions and interventions.

The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles.

Despite growing interest in Open Access (OA) to scholarly literature, there is an unmet need for large-scale, up-to-date, and reproducible studies assessing the prevalence and characteristics of OA. We address this need using oaDOI, an open online service that determines OA status for 67 million articles. We use three samples, each of 100,000 articles, to investigate OA in three populations: (1) all journal articles assigned a Crossref DOI, (2) recent journal articles indexed in Web of Science, and (3) articles viewed by users of Unpaywall, an open-source browser extension that lets users find OA articles using oaDOI. We estimate that at least 28% of the scholarly literature is OA (19M in total) and that this proportion is growing, driven particularly by growth in Gold and Hybrid. The most recent year analyzed (2015) also has the highest percentage of OA (45%). Because of this growth, and the fact that readers disproportionately access newer articles, we find that Unpaywall users encounter OA quite frequently: 47% of articles they view are OA. Notably, the most common mechanism for OA is not Gold, Green, or Hybrid OA, but rather an under-discussed category we dub Bronze: articles made free-to-read on the publisher website, without an explicit Open license. We also examine the citation impact of OA articles, corroborating the so-called open-access citation advantage: accounting for age and discipline, OA articles receive 18% more citations than average, an effect driven primarily by Green and Hybrid OA. We encourage further research using the free oaDOI service, as a way to inform OA policy and practice.

Attrition and performance of community college transfers.

Community colleges are an important part of the US higher education landscape, yet the aptitude and preparedness of student transfers to baccalaureate institutions is often called into question. Examining transcript records and demographic information of nearly 70,000 students across over 15 years of registrar records at a public university, this study performed a descriptive analysis of the persistence, performance, and academic migration patterns of community college transfers, transfers from four-year institutions, and freshmen entrants. We found little difference between community college transfers and freshmen entrants in terms of post-transfer grades and persistence. Transfers from four-year institutions had higher grades but also had higher attrition rates than their peers. This study also found no strong evidence of transfer shock on students' post-transfer grades. When examining the tendencies of students to shift fields of study during their educational pursuits, the academic migration patterns of transfer students were more concentrated than those of freshmen entrants.

The academic advantage: gender disparities in patenting.

We analyzed gender disparities in patenting by country, technological area, and type of assignee using the 4.6 million utility patents issued between 1976 and 2013 by the United States Patent and Trade Office (USPTO). Our analyses of fractionalized inventorships demonstrate that women's rate of patenting has increased from 2.7% of total patenting activity to 10.8% over the nearly 40-year period. Our results show that, in every technological area, female patenting is proportionally more likely to occur in academic institutions than in corporate or government environments. However, women's patents have a lower technological impact than that of men, and that gap is wider in the case of academic patents. We also provide evidence that patents to which women--and in particular academic women--contributed are associated with a higher number of International Patent Classification (IPC) codes and co-inventors than men. The policy implications of these disparities and academic setting advantages are discussed.

Memory in network flows and its effects on spreading dynamics and community detection.

Random walks on networks is the standard tool for modelling spreading processes in social and biological systems. This first-order Markov approach is used in conventional community detection, ranking and spreading analysis, although it ignores a potentially important feature of the dynamics: where flow moves to may depend on where it comes from. Here we analyse pathways from different systems, and although we only observe marginal consequences for disease spreading, we show that ignoring the effects of second-order Markov dynamics has important consequences for community detection, ranking and information spreading. For example, capturing dynamics with a second-order Markov model allows us to reveal actual travel patterns in air traffic and to uncover multidisciplinary journals in scientific communication. These findings were achieved only by using more available data and making no additional assumptions, and therefore suggest that accounting for higher-order memory in network flows can help us better understand how real systems are organized and function.

The role of gender in scholarly authorship.

Gender disparities appear to be decreasing in academia according to a number of metrics, such as grant funding, hiring, acceptance at scholarly journals, and productivity, and it might be tempting to think that gender inequity will soon be a problem of the past. However, a large-scale analysis based on over eight million papers across the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities reveals a number of understated and persistent ways in which gender inequities remain. For instance, even where raw publication counts seem to be equal between genders, close inspection reveals that, in certain fields, men predominate in the prestigious first and last author positions. Moreover, women are significantly underrepresented as authors of single-authored papers. Academics should be aware of the subtle ways that gender disparities can occur in scholarly authorship.

Coevolutionary cycling of host sociality and pathogen virulence in contact networks.

Infectious diseases may place strong selection on the social organization of animals. Conversely, the structure of social systems can influence the evolutionary trajectories of pathogens. While much attention has focused on the evolution of host sociality or pathogen virulence separately, few studies have looked at their coevolution. Here we use an agent-based simulation to explore host-pathogen coevolution in social contact networks. Our results indicate that under certain conditions, both host sociality and pathogen virulence exhibit continuous cycling. The way pathogens move through the network (e.g., their interhost transmission and probability of superinfection) and the structure of the network can influence the existence and form of cycling.