The case of #arseniclife: Blogs and Twitter in informal peer review

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 26, Issue 8, 2017, Pages 937-952

  Yeo, Sara K ^a   Liang, Xuan ^b   Brossard, Dominique ^b,c   Rose, Kathleen M ^b   Korzekwa, Kaine ^b   Scheufele, Dietram A ^b,c   Xenos, Michael A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c Morgridge Institute for Research   (United States)

Author keywords

blogs; informal post publication peer review; new media; sentiment analysis; Twitter

Indexed keywords

ARSENIC; PHOSPHORUS;

BACTERIUM; BLOGGING; GENETICS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; METABOLISM; PEER REVIEW; PUBLIC OPINION; SOCIAL MEDIA;

ARSENIC; BACTERIA; BLOGGING; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; PEER REVIEW; PHOSPHORUS; PUBLIC OPINION; SOCIAL MEDIA;

EID: 85031407106     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662516649806     Document Type: Article

References (104)

1. Ahmad AN, (2010) Is Twitter a useful tool for journalists? Journal of Media Practice 11(2): 145–155.
2. Alleyne R, (2010) Life as we don’t know it’ could prove existence of aliens. The Telegraph, 1 December. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/8174040/Life-as-we-dont-know-it-discovery-could-prove-existence-of-aliens.html
3. Altmetric.com (2016) A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus: Overview of attention for article published in Science, June 2011. Available at: http://www.altmetric.com/details/100063 (accessed 8 February 2016).
4. Bansal M, Cardie C, Lee L, (2008) The power of negative thinking: Exploiting label disagreement in the min-cut classification framework. In: Proceedings of COLING: companion volume: Posters. Manchester, UK. pp. 13–16.
5. Beck U, (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6. Bedeian AG, (2004) Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Academy of Management Learning & Education 3(2): 198–216.
7. Benner SA, (2011) Comment on “A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science 332(6034): 1149. DOI: 10.1126/science.1201304.
8. Birch H, Weitkamp E, (2010) Podologues: Conversations created by science podcasts. New Media & Society 12(6): 889–909.
9. Borhani DW, (2011) Comment on “A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science 332(6034): 1149. DOI: 10.1126/science.1201255.
10. Boyle A, (2012) Ups and downs for Higgs boson buzz. NBC News, 21 June. Available at: http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/21/12345552-ups-and-downs-for-higgs-boson-buzz?lite
11. Bradley A, (2010) Arsenate-based DNA: A big idea with big holes. Available at: http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2010/12/05/guest-post-arsenate-based-dna/
12. Brossard D, (2009) Media, scientific journals and science communication: Examining the construction of scientific controversies. Public Understanding of Science 18(3): 258–274.
13. Brossard D, (2012) A brave new world: Challenges and opportunities for communicating about biotechnology in new information environments. In: Weitze M-D, Puehler A, Heckl WM. (eds) Biotechnologie-Kommunikation [Biotechnology Communication]: Kontroversen, Analysen, Aktivitäten. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 427–445.
14. Brossard D, (2013) New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of United States of America, 110 (Suppl. 3): 14096–14101.
15. Brossard D, Shanahan J, McComas K, (2004) Are issue-cycles culturally constructed? A comparison of French and American coverage of global climate change. Mass Communication and Society 7(3): 359–377.
16. CBC News (2010) NASA’s arsenic microbe science slammed. CBC News, 6 December. Available at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2010/12/06/arsenic-microbe-dna-nasa-wolfe-simon.html
17. Chmiel A, Sobkowicz P, Sienkiewicz J, Paltoglou G, Buckley K, Thelwall M. (2011) Negative emotions boost users activity at BBC Forum. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 390(16): 2936–2944.
18. Collins HM, (1985) Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London: SAGE.
19. Conrad JG, Schilder F, (2007) Opinion mining in legal blogs. In: Paper presented at the ICAIL01: The 11th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, Palo Alto, CA, 4 –8 June, pp. 231–236. New York, NY: ACM.
20. Cotner JB, Hall EK, (2011) Comment on “A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science 332(6034): 1149. DOI: 10.1126/science.1201943.
21. Crane D, (1967) The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. American Sociologist 32: 195–201.
22. Csabai I, Szathmary E, (2011) Comment on “A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science 332(6034): 1149. DOI: 10.1126/science.1201399.
23. Davis PM, Walters WH, (2011) The impact of free access to the scientific literature: A review of recent research. Journal of the Medical Library Association 99(3): 208–217.
24. Edwards C, Spence PR, Gentile CJ, Edwards AA, Edwards A, (2013) How much Klout do you have… A test of system generated cues on source credibility. Computers in Human Behavior 29(5): A12–A16.
25. Farhi P, (2009) The Twitter explosion. American Journalism Review 31(3): 26–31.
26. Foster PL, (2011) Comment on “A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science 332(6034). DOI:10.1126/science.1201551.
27. Garfield E, (1980) Has scientific communication changed in 300 years? Essays of an Information Scientist 4(8): 394–400.
28. Garvey WD, (1979) Facilitating Information Exchange among Librarians, Scientists, Engineers and Students: Communication: The Essence of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
29. Gauchat G, (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere. American Sociological Review 77(2): 167–187.
30. Ghosh SS, Klein A, Avants B, Millman KJ, (2012) Learning from open source software projects to improve scientific review. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6: 18.
31. Govind M, (2008) Legitimacy of scientific knowledge: Emerging challenges from privatizations and globalizations of science. Journal of Social Sciences: A Journal of Banaras Hindu University 10(2): 236–257.
32. Gunter B, Koteyko N, Atanasova D, (2014) Sentiment analysis: A market-relevant and reliable measure of public feeling? International Journal of Market Research 56(2): 231–247.
33. Gutteling JM, (2005) Mazur’s hypothesis on technology controversy and media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 17(1): 23–41.
34. Harnad S, (1992) What scholars want and need from electronic journals. Proceedings of the Asis Annual Meeting 29: 342.
35. Hermida A, (2010a) From TV to Twitter: How ambient news became ambient journalism. Media/Culture Journal 13(2).
36. Hermida A, (2010b) Twittering the news: The emergence of ambient journalism. Journalism Practice 4(3): 297–308.
37. Herron DM, (2012) Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review. Surgical Endoscopy 26(8): 2275–2280.
38. Hopkins DJ, King G, (2010) A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 229–247.
39. Horrobin DF, (2001) Something rotten at the core of science? Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 22(2): 51–52.
40. Hughes AL, Palen L, (2009) Twitter adoption and use in mass convergence and emergency events. International Journal of Emergency Management 6(3): 248–260.
41. Hunter J, (2012) Post-publication peer review: Opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6: 63.
42. Jasanoff S, (2003) Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3): 223–244.
43. Jasanoff S, (2007) Technologies of humility. Nature 450(7166): 33.
44. Jump P, (2014) Can post-publication peer review endure? Times Higher Education, 13 November. Available at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/can-post-publication-peer-review-endure/2016895.article
45. Kling R, McKim G, King A, (2003) A bit more to it: Scholarly communication forums as socio-technical interaction networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54(1): 47–67.
46. Knoepfler P, (2015) Reviewing post-publication peer review. Trends in Genetics 31(5): 221–223.
47. Kouper I, (2010) Science blogs and public engagement with science: Practices, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Science Communication 9(1).
48. Kramer ADI, Guillory JE, Hancock JT, (2014) Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(24): 8788–8790.
49. Kuhn TS, (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
50. LaCour MJ, Green DP, (2014) When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality. Science 346(6215): 1366–1369.
51. Leary B, (2013, June). Do you have enough Klout? Atlanta Tribune 27(3): 50.
52. McNutt M, (2015) Editorial retraction. Science 348(6239): 1100.
53. Mandavilli A, (2011) Trial by Twitter. Nature 469(7330): 286–287.
54. Martin B, Richards E, (1995) Scientific knowledge, controversy, and public decision making. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch T, (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 506–526.
55. Mazur A, (1981) Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies. Journal of Communication 31(2): 106–115.
56. Miah A, (2005) Genetics, cyberspace and bioethics: Why not a public engagement with ethics? Public Understanding of Science 14: 409–421.
57. Morales AJ, Borondo J, Losada JC, Benito RM, (2014) Efficiency of human activity on information spreading on Twitter. Social Networks 39: 1–11.
58. Murthy D, (2011) Twitter: Microphone for the masses? Media Culture & Society 33(5): 779–789.
59. NASA (2010a) NASA-funded research discovers life built with toxic chemical, NASA, 2 December. Available at: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/dec/HQ_10-320_Toxic_Life.html
60. NASA (2010b) NASA sets news conference on astrobiology discovery: Science journal has embargoed details until 2 p.m. EST on December 2. NASA, 29 November. Available at: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_M10-167_Astrobiology.html
61. National Science Board (2014) Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
62. Nicholas D, Watkinson A, Jamali HR, Herman E, Tenopir C, Volentine R. (2015) Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing 28(1): 15–21.
63. Nisbet MC, Brossard D, Kroepsch A, (2003) Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics 8(2): 36–70.
64. Obokata H, Sasai Y, Niwa H, Kadota M, Andrabi M, Takata N. (2014a) Retraction: Bidirectional developmental potential in reprogrammed cells with acquired pluripotency. Nature 511(7507): 112.
65. Obokata H, Wakayama T, Sasai Y, Kojima K, Vacanti MP, Niwa H. (2014b) Retraction: Stimulus-triggered fate conversion of somatic cells into pluripotency. Nature 511(7507): 112.
66. Oehler S, (2011) Comment on “A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science 332(6034). DOI: 10.1126/science.1201381.
67. Oransky I, (2010a) An arsenic bacteria postmortem: NASA responds, tries to pit blogs vs. “credible media organization.” Available at: http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/an-arsenic-bacteria-postmortem-nasa-responds-tries-to-pit-blogs-vs-credible-media-organizations/
68. Oransky I, (2010b) Why write a blog on embargoes? Embargo Watch, 23 February. Available at: http://embargowatch.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/why-do-blog-on-embargoes/
69. Oransky I, (2015) Author retracts study of changing minds on same-sex marriage after colleague admits data were faked. Retraction Watch, 20 May. Available at: http://retractionwatch.com/2015/05/20/author-retracts-study-of-changing-minds-on-same-sex-marriage-after-colleague-admits-data-were-faked/
70. Pang B, Lee L, (2008) Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 2(1–2): 1–135.
71. Papacharissi Z, Oliveira MD, (2012) Affective news and networked publics: The rhythms of news storytelling on #Egypt. Journal of Communication 62(2): 266–282.
72. Park EH, (2011) Dr. Ivan Oransky: Executive editor of Reuters Health. 19 October. Available at: http://otherdoctors.com/tag/dr-ivan-oransky/
73. Reaves ML, Sinha S, Rabinowitz JD, Kruglyak L, Redfield RJ, (2012) Absence of detectable arsenate in DNA from arsenate-grown GFAJ-1 cells. Science 337(6093): 470–473.
74. Redfield RJ, (2010a) Arsenic-associated bacteria (NASA’s claims). Available at: http://rrresearch.fieldofscience.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html
75. Redfield RJ, (2010b) My letter to. Science, 8 December. Available at: http://rrresearch.fieldofscience.com/2010/12/my-letter-to-science.html
76. Redfield RJ, (2011a) Comment on “A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science 332(6034). DOI: 10.1126/science.1201482.
77. Redfield RJ, (2011b) How to test the arsenic-DNA claims. Available at: http://rrresearch.fieldofscience.com/2011/05/how-to-test-arsenic-dna-claims.html
78. Redfield RJ, (2012) The #arseniclife manuscript has been submitted! Available at: http://rrresearch.fieldofscience.com/2012/01/arseniclife-manuscript-has-been.html
79. Runge KK, Yeo SK, Cacciatore M, Scheufele DA, Brossard D, Xenos M. (2013) Tweeting nano: How public discourses about nanotechnology develop in social media environments. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 15(1): 1381.
80. Scheufele DA, (2011) Modern citizenship or policy dead end? Evaluating the need for public participation in science policy making, and why public meeting may not be the answer. Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy Research Paper Series, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 3 January.
81. Scheufele DA, (2013) Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 (Suppl. 3): 14040–14047.
82. Schoepp-Cothenet B, Nitschke W, Barge LM, Ponce A, Russell MJ, Tsapin AI, (2011) Comment on “A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science 332(6034). DOI: 10.1126/science.1201438.
83. Schroter S, Tite L, (2006) Open access publishing and author-pays business models: A survey of authors’ knowledge and perceptions. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99(3): 141–148.
84. Secko DM, (2009) The unfinished science story: Reflections on journalist-audience interactions in the online environment. Journal of Media Practice 10(2–3): 259–266.
85. Shema H, (2014) Introduction to open peer review. Available at: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/2014/06/28/introduction-to-open-peer-review/
86. Shirky C, (2011) The political power of social media. Foreign Affairs 90(1): 28–41.
87. Stevenson S, (2012) What your Klout score really means. WIRED, 24 April. Available at: http://www.wired.com/2012/04/ff_klout/
88. Teixeira da, Silva JA, (2013) The need for post-publication peer review in plant science publishing. Frontiers in Plant Science 4: 485.
89. Teixeira da, Silva JA, Dobránszki J, (2014) Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research 22(1): 22–40.
90. Tewksbury D, Scheufele DA, (2009) News framing theory and research. In: Bryant J, Oliver MB, (eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 3rd edn. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 17–33.
91. Thomas SP, (2011) Conceptual debates and empirical evidence about the peer review process for scholarly journals. Journal of Professional Nursing 27(3): 168–173.
92. Twitter (2015) About Twitter. Available at: https://twitter.com/about (accessed 23 November 2015).
93. Van Dijck J, (2011) Tracing Twitter: The rise of a microblogging platform. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 7(3): 333–348.
94. Van Noorden R, (2011) Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature 478: 26–28.
95. Vestergaard GL, (2016) The science grapevine: Influence of blog information on the online media coverage of the 2010 arsenic-based life study. Journalism. 18(5): 626–644. DOI: 10.1177/1464884915623171.
96. White M, (2014) Is social media saving science? Pacific Standard, 11 July. Available at: https://psmag.com/is-social-media-saving-science-c2dd19fd4d91#.hoj2t7vvd
97. Willnat L, Weaver DH, (2014) The American Journalist in the Digital Age: Key Findings. Bloomington, IN: School of Journalism, Indiana University.
98. Wolfe-Simon F, (2010, December 5) Discussion about Scientific Details MUST be within a Scientific Venue so that we can Come Back to the Public with a Unified Understanding. Available at: https://twitter.com/ironlisa/status/11579028288839680 (accessed 25 November 2015).
99. Wolfe-Simon F, Blum JS, Kulp TR, Gordon GW, Hoeft SE, Pett-Ridge J. (2010) A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science 332(6034): 1163–1166.
100. Wolfe-Simon F, Blum JS, Kulp TR, Gordon GW, Hoeft SE, Pett-Ridge J. (2011) Response to comments on “a bacterium that can grow using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science 332(6034): 1149.
101. Woolston C, (2015) Potential flaws in genomics paper scrutinized on Twitter. Nature 521(7553): 397.
102. Yeo SK, Xenos MA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, (2014) Disconnected discourses: How popular discourse about nanotechnology is missing the point. Materials Today 17(2): 48–49.
103. Zimmer C, (2010a) Of arsenic and aliens: What the critics said. Available at: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2010/12/08/of-arsenic-and-aliens-what-the-critics-said/
104. Zimmer C, (2010b) This paper should not have been published. Slate.com, 7 December. Available at: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/12/this_paper_should_not_have_been_published.html