IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/2002020.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Practices and promises of Facebook for science outreach: Becoming a “Nerd of Trust”

Author

Listed:
  • Craig R McClain

Abstract

Arguably, the dissemination of science communication has recently entered a new age in which science must compete for public attention with fake news, alternate facts, and pseudoscience. This clash is particularly evident on social media. Facebook has taken a prime role in disseminating fake news, alternate facts, and pseudoscience, but is often ignored in the context of science outreach, especially among individual scientists. Based on new survey data, scientists appear in large Facebook networks but seldom post information about general science, their own scientific research, or culturally controversial topics in science. The typical individual scientist’s audience is large and personally connected, potentially leading to both a broad and deep engagement in science. Moreover, this media values individual expertise, allowing scientists to serve as a “Nerd of Trust” for their online friend and family networks. Science outreach via social media demands a renewed interest, and Facebook may be an overlooked high-return, low-risk science outreach tool in which scientists can play a valuable role to combat disinformation.

Suggested Citation

  • Craig R McClain, 2017. "Practices and promises of Facebook for science outreach: Becoming a “Nerd of Trust”," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-9, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:2002020
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2002020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2002020
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2002020&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.2002020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Phil Williamson, 2016. "Take the time and effort to correct misinformation," Nature, Nature, vol. 540(7632), pages 171-171, December.
    2. Stefanie Haustein & Isabella Peters & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Mike Thelwall & Vincent Larivière, 2014. "Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(4), pages 656-669, April.
    3. Elaine Howard Ecklund & Sarah A James & Anne E Lincoln, 2012. "How Academic Biologists and Physicists View Science Outreach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-5, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emily L Howell & Julia Nepper & Dominique Brossard & Michael A Xenos & Dietram A Scheufele, 2019. "Engagement present and future: Graduate student and faculty perceptions of social media and the role of the public in science engagement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    2. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Yang Zhang, 2023. "The effect of social media knowledge cascade: an analysis of scientific papers diffusion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5169-5195, September.
    3. Isidro F. Aguillo, 2020. "Altmetrics of the Open Access Institutional Repositories: a webometrics approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(3), pages 1181-1192, June.
    4. Yaxue Ma & Zhichao Ba & Yuxiang Zhao & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2021. "Understanding and predicting the dissemination of scientific papers on social media: a two-step simultaneous equation modeling–artificial neural network approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 7051-7085, August.
    5. Yu Liu & Dan Lin & Xiujuan Xu & Shimin Shan & Quan Z. Sheng, 2018. "Multi-views on Nature Index of Chinese academic institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 823-837, March.
    6. Sebastian Vogl & Thomas Scherndl & Anton Kühberger, 2018. "#Psychology: a bibliometric analysis of psychological literature in the online media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1253-1269, June.
    7. Nuredini, Kaltrina & Peters, Isabella, 2015. "Economic and Business Studies Journals and Readership Information from Mendeley," EconStor Conference Papers 110467, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    8. Thomas W. Sanchez, 2021. "Urban Planning Academics: Tweets and Citations," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 146-153.
    9. Beatriz Barros & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Raul Fidalgo-Merino & Francisco Triguero, 2018. "Scientific knowledge percolation process and social impact: A case study on the biotechnology and microbiology perceptions on Twitter," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 804-814.
    10. Juan Ruano & Macarena Aguilar-Luque & Francisco Gómez-Garcia & Patricia Alcalde Mellado & Jesus Gay-Mimbrera & Pedro J Carmona-Fernandez & Beatriz Maestre-López & Juan Luís Sanz-Cabanillas & José Luís, 2018. "The differential impact of scientific quality, bibliometric factors, and social media activity on the influence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses about psoriasis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, January.
    11. Chieh Liu & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2022. "Exploring the relationships between altmetric counts and citations of papers in different academic fields based on co-occurrence analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4939-4958, August.
    12. Houqiang Yu, 2017. "Context of altmetrics data matters: an investigation of count type and user category," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(1), pages 267-283, April.
    13. Alana Kluczkovski & Joanne Cook & Helen F. Downie & Alison Fletcher & Lauryn McLoughlin & Andrew Markwick & Sarah L. Bridle & Christian J. Reynolds & Ximena Schmidt Rivera & Wayne Martindale & Angelin, 2020. "Interacting with Members of the Public to Discuss the Impact of Food Choices on Climate Change—Experiences from Two UK Public Engagement Events," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, March.
    14. Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh & A. Noorhidawati & A. Abrizah, 2019. "What can Bookmetrix tell us about the impact of Springer Nature’s books," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 521-536, October.
    15. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2021. "What affects publications’ popularity on Twitter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9185-9198, November.
    16. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.
    17. Xu, Fang & Ou, Guiyan & Ma, Tingcan & Wang, Xianwen, 2021. "The consistency of impact of preprints and their journal publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    18. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Adams, Jonathan, 2019. "Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 325-340.
    19. Saeideh Ebrahimy & Jafar Mehrad & Fatemeh Setareh & Massoud Hosseinchari, 2016. "Path analysis of the relationship between visibility and citation: the mediating roles of save, discussion, and recommendation metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1497-1510, December.
    20. Meredith Nash & Hanne E F Nielsen & Justine Shaw & Matt King & Mary-Anne Lea & Narissa Bax, 2019. "“Antarctica just has this hero factor…”: Gendered barriers to Australian Antarctic research and remote fieldwork," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-22, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:2002020. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.