Beyond Traditional Publishing: Social Media as a Catalyst for Biomedical Research Dissemination and Collaboration

Abstract

The expansion of social media has fundamentally transformed biomedical research dissemination and collaboration, particularly within the interferon and cytokine research community. This paper explores recent trends (2024–2025) that have amplified the role of platforms such as Twitter (now “X”), LinkedIn, Mastodon, Threads, and Bluesky. These tools have facilitated rapid knowledge exchange, democratized access to scientific discourse, enabled diverse voices to participate meaningfully, and fostered cross-disciplinary and global collaborations. Additionally, the integration of preprint repositories like bioRxiv and medRxiv, along with the evolution of open access publishing, further accelerates the accessibility and immediacy of scientific communication. Despite evident benefits, the rapid dissemination facilitated by social media also poses ethical challenges, including concerns about misinformation, premature dissemination of preliminary data, and privacy considerations. Practical strategies for researchers and institutions to effectively navigate these platforms responsibly are presented, aiming to optimize the impact of social media on scientific discovery and public engagement.

Introduction

The incredible growth of social media platforms is ideal for effective sharing and collaborative environments in biomedical research and has changed the face of research sharing in the interferon and cytokine domain. Digital communication channels are now supplementing traditional forms of scholarly publication (Sugimoto et al., 2017). Information dissemination in the interferon and cytokine research community, a domain that’s long depended on journals, conferences, and in-person networks, is speeding up, thanks to platforms such as Twitter (which rebranded as “X” in 2023), LinkedIn, Mastodon, and newer services like Threads. These tools facilitate the timely dissemination of data, including preprints, promote international collaborations, and enable scientists to reach a wider audience. In this correspondence, we discuss the impact that existing trends (circa 2024–2025) in open science and social media are having on the field of interferon and cytokines. We explore the dynamics surrounding the new platforms themselves, including preprint servers and open-access publishing, the democratization of scientific discussion, and the ethics of rapid dissemination on the internet.

The Changing Nature of Scientific Communication

Social media platforms (such as X [formerly Twitter], LinkedIn, Mastodon, Threads, and Bluesky) seem to have also diversified during this past year, resulting in a fragmented landscape for academic discourse. Twitter had long been the lifeblood of academia, but content moderation concerns have led scientists to look elsewhere, to sites like LinkedIn and decentralized alternatives such as Mastodon. Threads and Bluesky have also become popular for scholarly communication, offering a new way for researchers to share their research results (Carrigan, 2023; Mallapaty, 2024; Biever, 2025). Table 1 describes the key advantages and disadvantages of these established and emerging platforms.

Table 1.

Social Media Platforms for Biomedical Sciences

Platform	Primary focus	Strengths	Weaknesses
X (Twitter)	Rapid dissemination	Large audience, established hashtags	Reduced moderation
LinkedIn	Professional networking	Strong institutional presence	Limited informal interactions
Mastodon	Decentralized discussions	Community-driven moderation	Fragmented user base, learning curve
Threads	Informal sharing (Instagram-based)	Rapid initial adoption	Limited academic engagement
Bluesky	Academic-focused interactions	Collegial atmosphere	Smaller audience

Focus on multiple platforms

Twitter has served for over a decade as a central nexus for ideas in academia and spawned communities around hashtags such as #ScienceTwitter, #Immunology, and #Cytokines. Researchers turned to X to share articles, discuss results, and even host “tweetorials,” rendering the social platform a valuable tool for academic exchange (Luzón, 2023). Recent changes, though, have created a less cohesive social media environment for academics. Many scientists expressed concern about the changing environment on Twitter and the shrinking of content moderation in late 2022 and 2023 and began looking for alternatives. As Carrigan (2023) notes, “we’re entering a more fragmented landscape” of many platforms with no 1 replacement for the old academic Twitter community.

In 2023–2024, a large part of the academic world shifted to LinkedIn, using its professional networking format for scientific news. LinkedIn was considered a social network primarily focused on professional relations, but now it celebrates research and laboratory achievements. Meanwhile, the federated platform Mastodon experienced a surge in researchers seeking a non-corporate, community-moderated space. Mastodon’s decentralized design appeals for its instances that are governed by users, but it is also “not designed to be a good fit with the kind of academic social media culture that has built up” and necessitates a “substantial learning curve” and culture change for newcomers (Carrigan, 2023).

In mid-2023, Meta launched Threads, a Twitter-like platform tied to Instagram. Threads experienced rapid initial uptake, with tens of millions of users joining within weeks of its launch. Some scientists experimented with it, but engagement among academics has been tempered by its early limitations (Carrigan, 2023). By late 2024, yet another platform, Bluesky, gained momentum among scientists. Notably, a poll by Nature in early 2025 found roughly 70% of responding scientists were using Bluesky, many describing it as a “nicer, kinder and less antagonistic” environment for science discussion compared to Twitter (Biever, 2025). This proliferation of platforms means that researchers today often maintain a presence across multiple networks to reach their peers.

Academic hashtags and communities

Throughout this evolution, the use of hashtags and online communities has matured. On Twitter (X), hashtags have become powerful tools to aggregate discussions—for example, #SciComm for general science communication or niche tags such as #Cytokines and #Interferon for topic-specific posts (Mondal et al., 2023). During the COVID-19 pandemic, hashtags related to science experienced a surge in popularity. The hashtag #COVID19 was among the top co-occurring tags with #SciComm, reflecting intense global engagement by scientists and the public on immunology topics. This period highlighted how quickly information on cytokine research (e.g., discussions of “cytokine storms” in severe COVID-19) could spread worldwide via social media.

Academic conferences in immunology have also developed their own hashtags (e.g., #Cytokines2024 for the International Cytokine & Interferon Society meeting) to share updates in real-time. On newer platforms such as Mastodon, where algorithmic discovery is limited, hashtags have become even more critical for finding content, leading to norms such as tagging posts with research areas, organisms, or methods (for instance, #Immunology, #FlowCytometry) to reach relevant communities. The academic social media culture has also spurred the creation of dedicated forums and Slack/Discord groups for immunologists, but open platforms remain key for wide dissemination.

Digital community norms

Alongside hashtags, the norms of scientific engagement online have evolved. Researchers increasingly emphasize professionalism and inclusivity in online discourse. Many groups have instituted or advocated for codes of conduct to curb harassment and misinformation. For example, Mastodon instances often enforce rules against hate speech and encourage the use of content warnings for potentially sensitive content (Mastodon World, n.d.; Nicholson et al., 2023). It’s becoming common practice to preface tweets or posts about unpublished data with disclaimers (e.g., using the hashtag #preprint or stating “not yet peer-reviewed”) to set correct expectations. Another positive norm is credit-giving: tagging coauthors or lab members when discussing a new article and acknowledging sources, which aligns with broader academic ethics. Overall, the social media era has introduced a “new normal” in which open scientific discussion is encouraged. However, researchers are also learning to navigate issues of tone, privacy, and accuracy in these informal forms of communication.

Accelerating Knowledge Exchange

While formal publication in peer-reviewed journals remains the cornerstone of validated scientific communication, platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), Bluesky, LinkedIn, and specialized networks like ResearchGate and Academia.org facilitate the immediate dissemination of preliminary findings. Such accelerated sharing was critically evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, where early insights into cytokine storms involving IL-6 and interferon responses rapidly informed therapeutic approaches (Mehta et al., 2020).

Preprints and rapid dissemination of research

The use of preprint servers—particularly bioRxiv and medRxiv—has surged in biomedical science, transforming the speed at which findings reach the community. In the field of interferon and cytokine research, where timely data sharing can accelerate responses to emerging diseases, such as COVID-19, or the development of new therapies, preprints have become an invaluable tool. Scientists can post a draft article on bioRxiv/medRxiv and, within hours, have it publicly available for anyone to read months before formal journal publication.

Crucially, social media serves as an amplifier for these preprints: once a preprint is posted, authors often announce it on X or other platforms, allowing colleagues to reshare, discuss, or critique the findings immediately. This synergy dramatically compresses the dissemination timeline, reducing it from what was previously many months (or even years, with publication delays) to mere days or weeks (Bauer, 2022; Ni and Waltman, 2024).

During the COVID-19 pandemic, preprints played an unprecedented role in information sharing. Both bioRxiv and medRxiv received record numbers of submissions during the pandemic, as researchers rushed to publish findings on SARS-CoV-2 virology, immune responses, and potential treatments (Bauer, 2022). One notable example in the cytokine field was the early publication of results showing type I interferon autoantibodies in severe COVID-19; this preprint was widely circulated on X among immunologists and clinicians even before it appeared in Science (Bastard et al., 2020). Such rapid dissemination enabled experts to incorporate new insights (e.g., regarding the role of interferon in COVID-19 pathology) into their ongoing research and even clinical trials in near real-time.

Preprints offer clear advantages: speed, openness, and reach. They bypass the lengthy peer review and editorial process of journals, enabling researchers to “make findings immediately available to the research community worldwide.” This is particularly beneficial in fast-moving fields or public health emergencies. Preprints are freely accessible, aligning with open science principles—anyone can read a medRxiv preprint without a subscription. This means that when a link is shared on social media, there is no paywall barrier for readers. Moreover, authors can receive feedback on their preprints via comments and X discussions. Indeed, many scientists report that posting a preprint invites helpful critique and suggestions from colleagues globally, sometimes leading to improved revisions before journal submission. For example, over 20,000 tweets mentioned bioRxiv in 2015 alone, illustrating the frequency with which preprint findings are shared and discussed online.

Complementary to social media platforms, pre-print repositories such as bioRxiv and medRxiv have emerged as key intermediaries, providing researchers the opportunity to disseminate findings swiftly prior to formal peer review, significantly expediting the communication cycle (Sever et al., 2019).

Democratizing Access and Amplifying Diverse Voices

Traditional publishing models often limit access to cutting-edge research, which is frequently behind paywalls or restricted to institutionally accessible databases. Social media platforms disrupt these barriers, granting researchers from resource-limited institutions unprecedented access to new findings. These platforms additionally amplify historically marginalized voices, thereby enriching interferon and cytokine research with diverse perspectives that may otherwise remain underrepresented in traditional scholarly discourse.

One of the most profound impacts of social media on science has been the democratization of scientific communication. Traditional scientific discourse often favored those at well-funded institutions or in the global North, who had easier access to journals, conferences, and networks. Today, platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, and blogs allow researchers from historically underrepresented groups and regions to share their science and perspectives directly with a wide audience, bypassing many old gatekeepers. As Pasin (2025) observed, “the rise of digital platforms, including blogs, podcasts, and social media, is helping to democratize science communication,” enabling researchers to “bypass traditional gatekeepers and connect directly with the public.” In the field of interferon and cytokine research, this means that talented scientists from anywhere in the world can gain recognition for their work through the savvy use of social media, even if they lack famous mentors or high-impact journal publications initially.

Importantly, social media has allowed diverse voices to contribute to scientific dialogues. Researchers from developing countries, early-career scientists, women and minorities in STEM, and patient advocates are all more visible in conversations about cytokine research than they might have been in formal conference podium sessions or journal commentaries. Pasin (2025) gives a compelling example of a professor in Brazil who built a strong following on Instagram by sharing her research in immunology, leading to collaborations and career opportunities for her and her students that might not have arisen otherwise.

Likewise, initiatives such as #BlackInImmunology, #WomenInSTEM, or #LatinXChem (for chemists) have formed on Twitter, creating supportive communities and highlighting contributions of Black, female, and Latinx scientists, respectively. These grassroots hashtag movements organize special weeks of activities, highlight underrecognized researchers, and mentor newcomers—effectively leveraging social networks to increase inclusivity in science. The cytokine research community has benefited from such inclusion; for instance, discussions on treating cytokine release syndrome or on interferon therapies for diseases often include voices from clinicians in various countries and patients offering their lived experiences, broadening the conversation.

Concurrently, the expansion of open access journals provides another crucial mechanism, allowing unrestricted access to research findings and facilitating broader dissemination across scientific communities (Suber, 2012).

Open Access Publishing and Community Engagement

The expansion of open access publishing, driven by initiatives such as Plan S and US federal mandates, has synergized with social media platforms to democratize research access. In parallel with the rise of preprints, the scholarly publishing model has been shifting toward greater openness, fundamentally altering how research in immunology and cytokine biology is accessed and discussed. Open access (OA) publishing—where journal articles are made freely available for all to read—has expanded significantly in the past decade. By 2025, many major biomedical journals will either operate on a fully open access basis or under hybrid models where authors can choose to pay Article Processing Charges (APCs) to make their work open.

This evolution is driven in part by funder mandates and initiatives such as Plan S in Europe, which from 2021 began requiring that research funded by certain agencies be made immediately open to read upon publication. In the United States, new policies are following suit: the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy announced that all federally funded research publications should be made freely available without embargo by the end of 2025. In line with this, the NIH and other agencies have been updating their public access requirements, further accelerating the trend toward the immediate open availability of biomedical findings (Nature Biomedical Engineering Editorial, 2022).

For the interferon and cytokine research community, the growth of open access means that an ever-larger share of new articles can be read by anyone, anywhere, without subscription barriers. This has a powerful amplifying effect when coupled with social media. When a new cytokine study is published open access (or posted as a preprint), a researcher can share the link on X or LinkedIn, knowing that colleagues, clinicians, patient advocates, or interested laypersons who click the link will be able to read the full article. Democratized access facilitates wider discussion and even collaboration.

Additionally, open access publishing has spawned new models of dissemination that align well with social media usage. Many researchers now post “plain language summaries” or graphical abstracts of their OA articles on X threads or as infographics on Instagram, knowing that a broad audience can immediately click through to the full article. Journals and publishers have also adapted by promoting content online: for example, some society journals in immunology will tweet every new article (often tagging the authors and using hashtags like #openaccess) to increase visibility and engagement. The rise of visual abstracts—a single-slide summary of an article’s key findings—is a trend that originated on social media and is now encouraged by journals as a means to broaden reach. This is particularly useful in fields such as cytokine research, where complex signaling pathways or experimental results can be conveyed more effectively with a figure; a visual abstract can capture attention on a social feed and direct readers to the full publication.

It should be noted that while gold open access (where authors pay APCs) has become common, there is growing support for more sustainable and equitable models. Institutions and consortia are striking transformative agreements with publishers, and there’s advocacy for diamond open access (free to authors and readers) to ensure that the ability to publish or access research is not limited by financial means. The overall momentum, however, clearly favors openness.

Building Cross-Disciplinary Communities

Social media uniquely fosters interdisciplinary collaboration by connecting immunologists, computational biologists, clinicians, and patient advocates in virtual spaces. For instance, X hashtags, such as #CytokineTalk, could unite researchers studying JAK-STAT signaling pathways with clinical specialists in autoimmune diseases, catalyzing translational research collaborations that are unlikely to arise within conventional academic frameworks (Van Noorden, 2014).

Social media also levels the playing field between senior experts and junior scientists in discussions. A graduate student can ask a question of a world-renowned cytokine biologist in an X thread and receive an answer or even engage in a scientific debate in a manner that would be daunting in person. This informality can foster mentorship and collaboration across hierarchical boundaries. Many senior researchers actively encourage early-career researchers to participate in journal clubs or article discussions held on social media, knowing it builds confidence and visibility for the next generation. Some labs “take over” a society’s X account for a day to showcase their young researchers’ work. Furthermore, open discussions mean that when someone shares a new result, any knowledgeable person can chime in—this crowdsourced commentary can catch mistakes, add alternative interpretations, or suggest new experiments, thus enriching the research process.

Challenges and Ethical Considerations

Despite notable benefits, social media-mediated communication introduces several ethical and practical challenges. The pressure to create widely shared or “viral” content risks oversimplifying complex immunological concepts and prematurely amplifying preliminary data before thorough peer evaluation (Pulido et al., 2020). Additionally, access limitations in countries where social media is heavily regulated may create disparities in information dissemination, thus demanding careful attention to equity and responsible communication practices.

While the benefits of rapid and open communication are clear, they come with ethical responsibilities and quality control challenges that the interferon/cytokine research community must navigate. Chief among these is the risk of premature dissemination or misinterpretation of scientific findings (Cook et al., 2018). In the traditional model, new results underwent peer review and careful revision before being published in a journal. Press releases were coordinated to coincide with publication, and any public communication was done with the stamp of peer-reviewed credibility. Now, with preprints and social media, a discovery may be broadcast worldwide before external reviewers have had a chance to vet it. If the finding is later invalidated or significantly altered, the initial message may have already spread far beyond the reach of subsequent corrections (Bauer, 2022).

A notable example occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic: early on, a preprint claimed certain genetic sequences in the virus were indicative of HIV, sparking viral social media speculation, only for the preprint to be quickly withdrawn after experts debunked it (Sharma et al., 2020). This instance, along with others, highlights how misinformation or overhyped results can rapidly take hold on social media. Researchers and journalists, eager for impactful news, may sometimes over-interpret preliminary data (Cook et al., 2018). For immunology and cytokine research, the implications are serious—misinterpretation could, for instance, lead to public panic about a “new deadly cytokine phenomenon” or cause clinicians to try an unproven therapy promoted online.

Another ethical concern is the scoop and credit culture. When everyone is sharing work in progress, there is community pressure to stake a claim to discoveries quickly. This could tempt some to rush data out prematurely. It also raises questions about intellectual credit: if researcher A shares an idea or preliminary finding on X, and researcher B later publishes on it without acknowledging A’s post, is that unethical? The norms here are still developing. Generally, openly shared ideas are considered fair game in science; however, professional courtesy would suggest crediting the inspiration. Some researchers now avoid disclosing too many technical details online until they are ready to publish, to protect their work—highlighting a tension between open sharing and traditional academic competition.

Quality control on social media also extends to general scientific accuracy and myth-busting. False or misleading claims can circulate (sometimes by non-experts co-opting scientific terms). A recent challenge has been combating the spread of pseudoscience and exaggerated claims related to cytokines, such as those seen during the pandemic, where numerous unproven “immune boosters” were promoted online. Scientists have taken on a public education role, often using their platforms to debunk myths in real time. This is commendable, but it can also be time-consuming and expose them to trolling. The community widely agrees on the ethical importance of countering misinformation, as public trust in science is at stake.

Privacy and patient confidentiality are also important considerations, particularly in clinical research involving cytokine therapies. Researchers must avoid sharing any identifiable patient information on social media. Even anecdotal clinical observations need to be generalized or anonymized in accordance with ethical guidelines (and many institutions have social media policies that reinforce HIPAA or equivalent rules).

Practical Strategies for Researchers and Institutions

To navigate these challenges effectively, the interferon and cytokine research community should adopt the following practical strategies (Table 2):

Table 2.

Practical Recommendations for Effective Social Media Use by Institutions

Strategy	Implementation actions
Develop digital science communication skills	Provide formal training in science communication for digital platforms.
Establish ethical guidelines for sharing preliminary data	Create institution-specific guidelines aligned with international ethical standards for pre-peer-review sharing.
Build inclusive online communities	Engage researchers globally through targeted outreach and multilingual platforms.
Expand metrics of research impact	Include altmetrics and social media engagement metrics in research evaluations.
Integrate social media into open science practices	Combine social media outreach with open-access publication and data-sharing initiatives.

To maximize the benefits of social media while mitigating its drawbacks, researchers studying interferon and cytokines can adopt several practical strategies. Table 3, below, distills key approaches for effective use of social media in our field:

Table 3.

Strategies for Interferon and Cytokine Researchers to Effectively Use Social Media for Communication and Collaboration

Strategy	Tips for implementation in interferon and cytokine research
Join field-specific communities	Identify and follow relevant hashtags (e.g., #Cytokines, #Interferon, #Immunology) and accounts (such as the International Cytokine & Interferon Society’s social pages). Engaging with these communities helps you stay updated on latest articles and discussions specific to cytokine biology. Participate in immunology Twitter chats or Mastodon groups to connect with peers in real time.
Share your research openly	When you have a new result or publication, consider posting a preprint on bioRxiv/medRxiv and then sharing the link on social media. Craft a succinct summary or a thread explaining the key findings in accessible language. Use a graphical abstract or figure for visual impact, as posts with images tend to get higher engagement. Invite feedback from the community -- this can lead to new ideas or collaborations while also raising visibility of your work.
Leverage hashtags and tagging	Use popular science communication tags like #SciComm or #AcademicTwitter alongside specific tags (e.g., #Inflammation, #CancerImmunology if relevant) to broaden the reach. Tag co-authors, your institution, or interested colleagues when you post about your work; this encourages them to reshare and signals credit. During conferences, live-tweet key points from talks using the conference hashtag (e.g., #Cytokines2025), which helps distill new findings for those not attending and raises your profile as an engaged scientist.
Engage and collaborate respectfully	Treat social media as a two-way street: ask questions of others and respond to questions about your posts. Providing insightful comments on others’ research (e.g., a new interferon assay someone shared) can start valuable conversations. If you seek specific expertise (bioinformatics help, reagent recommendations), don’t hesitate to crowdsource—often someone in your network will chime in. Maintain a professional but approachable tone. Even in disagreements or debates over interpretations, remain respectful and support your points with evidence rather than resorting to ad hominem arguments. This builds a reputation for integrity.
Promote open science and education	Use your platform to share not just your articles, but also datasets, protocols, or code relevant to your cytokine research, if possible. For instance, if you developed a cytokine quantification method, consider posting a tutorial or a short video demonstration. Such content is highly valued and often widely shared, extending your impact. Additionally, engage in public education: explain how interferons work to lay audiences or debunk a myth (when you see 1 trending). By being a source of reliable information, you enhance public understanding and trust in immunological science.
Navigate limitations and ethics	Be mindful of the information you share. Clearly label preliminary results (e.g., “Pilot data:” or “Preliminary observation:”) to avoid overstatement. Avoid posting anything that might violate patient confidentiality or agreements with collaborators. If you realize you made an error in a post, correct it publicly -- transparency is appreciated. Lastly, manage your time and wellbeing: social media can be overwhelming, so consider setting specific times for engagement or using tools to schedule posts, ensuring it remains a productive part of your professional life, not a distraction.

Conclusion

By thoughtfully engaging with digital platforms, adopting ethical guidelines, and integrating social media into broader open science practices, the interferon and cytokine research community can significantly accelerate scientific discovery, foster diverse collaborations, and effectively bridge laboratory findings with clinical applications.

Social media has indisputably become a catalyst for dissemination and collaboration in interferon and cytokine research. By enabling the instantaneous sharing of discoveries, fostering connections worldwide, and breaking down access barriers, platforms such as X, LinkedIn, Mastodon, and others have become integral to the fabric of modern scientific practice. The years 2024–2025 have brought new platforms and norms, reflecting a community that is adapting to a post-Twitter era of diverse channels. Preprint servers and open-access models amplify the speed and reach of information, empowering researchers to accelerate the research cycle from discovery to publication. At the same time, the community is learning to uphold standards of rigor and ethics in this fast-paced environment, ensuring that quality and trust are maintained even as the traditional filters loosen.

For the field of interferon and cytokines specifically, the implications are significant. Faster information exchange can lead to quicker responses to emerging diseases, more robust interdisciplinary collaboration (as immunologists connect with clinicians, geneticists, computational biologists, and others via shared online spaces), and greater inclusion of voices from around the world. A graduate student studying type I interferons in Nigeria can discuss their results with a leading professor in the US on Mastodon. A clinician in India can read and comment on a cytokine therapy preprint the day it is posted. A patient advocate can ask researchers on X about how a new IL-6 inhibitor might impact patients. These interactions enrich the field and ground it in a real-world context.

As we harness social media as a catalyst for progress, it’s essential to refine our approach continually. Researchers should remain vigilant against the spread of misinformation, guard against the temptation to prioritize online clout over rigorous scientific evidence, and strive to create online spaces that are inclusive and welcoming. If we succeed, the reward is a more connected and responsive research community, capable of tackling scientific challenges with unprecedented coordination. The story of interferon and cytokine research—in which breakthroughs, such as the identification of interferon in viral defense or cytokine therapies for autoimmune diseases, took years to disseminate widely in the past—may, in the future, be one of near-instantaneous global knowledge sharing. In this way, social media, coupled with open science initiatives, truly serves as a catalyst, accelerating not only the flow of information but also the pace at which we can collectively improve human health through cytokine biology.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

No funding was received for this article.

References

Bastard

, Rosen

, Zhang

, et al.; COVID Human Genetic Effort. Autoantibodies against type I IFNs in patients with life-threatening COVID-19. Science, 2020; 370(6515); doi: 10.1126/science.abd4585

Bauer

. The Risk of Scientific Misinformation with Preprints and SCIENCE TWITTER. Petrie-Flom Center Blog (Bill of Health); 2022. 7 Feb 2022.

Biever

. ‘Bluesky’s science takeover: 70% of Nature poll respondents use platform . Nature, 2025; doi: 10.1038/d41586-025-00177-1

Carrigan

. Where now for Academics on Social Media, Post Twitter?. LSE Higher Education Blog; 2023. 27 July 2023.

Cook

, O’Connell

, Hall

, et al. Benefits and Threats to Using Social Media for Presenting and Implementing Evidence. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 2018; 48(1):3–7; doi: 10.2519/jospt.2018.0601

Luzón

M-J

. ‘Excited to see our latest work published’: Recontextualizing research results in biomedical tweetorials. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2023; 66:101308; doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101308

Mallapaty

. ‘A place of joy’: why scientists are joining the rush to Bluesky. Nature, 2024; 636(8041):15–16; doi: 10.1038/d41586-024-03784-6

Mastodon World. Code of Conduct. n.d. Available from: https://mastodon.world/about#:∼:text=We%20use%20Content%20Warnings%20so

Mehta

, McAuley

, Brown

, et al.; HLH Across Speciality Collaboration, UK. COVID-19: Consider cytokine storm syndromes and immunosuppression. Lancet, 2020; 395(10229):1033–1034; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30628-0

10.

Mondal

, Atanasov

, Eibensteiner

, et al. Science communication on X (formerly Twitter): A picture is worth a thousand characters? Explor Digit Health Technol, 2023; 1:28–34; doi: 10.3734/9/edht.2023.00005

11.

Nature Biomedical Engineering Editorial. More research will be publicly accessible sooner. Nature Biomedical Engineering, 2022; 6(10):1013–1014; doi: 10.1038/s41551-022-00944-9

12.

, Waltman

. To preprint or not to preprint: A global researcher survey. Asso for Info Science & Tech, 2024; 75(6):749–766; doi: 10.1002/asi.24880

13.

Nicholson

, Keegan

, Fiesler

. Mastodon rules: characterizing formal rules on popular mastodon instances . In: Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ‘23 Companion), October 14–18, 2023. ACM, New York, NY, USA: Minneapolis, MN, USA; 2023. doi: 10.1145/3584931.3606970

14.

Pasin

. The Monopoly Defined: Who holds the Power of Science Communication? ASBMB Today; 2025.

15.

Pulido

, Villarejo-Carballido

, Redondo-Sama

, et al. COVID-19 infodemic: More retweets for science-based Information on coronavirus than for false information. International Sociology, 2020; 35(4):377–392; doi: 10.1177/0268580920914755

16.

Sever

, Roeder

, Hindle

, et al. bioRxiv: The preprint server for biology. BioRxiv, 2019.

17.

Sharma

, Scarr

, Kelland

. Speed Science: The risks of Swiftly Spreading Coronavirus Research. 2020. Available from: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/CHINA-HEALTH-RESEARCH/0100B5ES3MG/

18.

Suber

. Open Access. MIT Press: Cambridge; 2012.

19.

Sugimoto

, Work

, Larivière

, et al. Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. Asso for Info Science & Tech, 2017; 68(9):2037–2062; doi: 10.1002/asi.23833

20.

Van Noorden

. Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature, 2014; 512(7513):126–129; doi: 10.1038/512126a