Most tweets about this publication were also written before its retraction

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

Reason for retraction of Wang et al. publication was due to the use of T-cell lines instead of primary T cells, which made the flow cytometry methodology flawed
- “Primary” mentioned in 14 tweets before retraction and 4 since retraction
- First warning tweet about the accuracy and validity of the t cells methodology posted 2 days after publication, or 3 months prior to retraction, on April 9, 2020
- Before retraction, 23 tweets mentioned “flow cytometry” and 101 tweets mentioned “flowcytometry,” most of which were retweets
- First warning tweet about flow cytometry also posted on April 9, 2020
- Only 1 tweet after retraction notice mentioned “flowcytometry” and 0 mentioned “flow cytometry”

Can tweets be used to detect problems early with scientific papers? A case study of three retracted COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 papers findings - Wang et al.

Haunschild, R., & Bornmann, L. (2021). Can tweets be used to detect problems early with scientific papers? A case study of three retracted COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 papers. Scientometrics, 1-19. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-021-03962-7 

Can tweets be used to detect problems early with scientific papers? A case study of three retracted COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 papers

Can tweets be used to detect problems early with scientific papers? A case study of three retracted COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 papers findings - Wang et al. figure

Learn Before

Related