Understanding the Use of e-Prints on Reddit and 4chan's Politically Incorrect Board

TL;DR

This study examines how e-Prints are discussed on Reddit and 4chan, revealing their influence, misinterpretations, and the need for validation to prevent misinformation in online communities.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive analysis of e-Print mentions across diverse online communities over 14 years, highlighting discussion patterns and potential misinformation risks.

Findings

e-Prints are discussed in both science and general communities

Discussion frequency spikes during major events like COVID-19

Low textual similarity suggests diverse discussion content

Abstract

The dissemination and reach of scientific knowledge have increased at a blistering pace. In this context, e-Print servers have played a central role by providing scientists with a rapid and open mechanism for disseminating research without waiting for the (lengthy) peer review process. While helping the scientific community in several ways, e-Print servers also provide scientific communicators and the general public with access to a wealth of knowledge without paying hefty subscription fees. This motivates us to study how e-Prints are positioned within Web community discussions. In this paper, we analyze data from two Web communities: 14 years of Reddit data and over 4 from 4chan's Politically Incorrect board. Our findings highlight the presence of e-Prints in both science-enthusiast and general-audience communities. Real-world events and distinct factors influence the e-Prints people's discussions; e.g., there was a surge of COVID-19-related research publications during the early months of the outbreak and increased references to e-Prints in online discussions. Text in e-Prints and in online discussions referencing them has a low similarity, suggesting that the latter are not exclusively talking about the findings in the former. Further, our analysis of a sample of threads highlights: 1) misinterpretation and generalization of research findings, 2) early research findings being amplified as a source for future predictions, and 3) questioning findings from a pseudoscientific e-Print. Overall, our work emphasizes the need to quickly and effectively validate non-peer-reviewed e-Prints that get substantial press/social media coverage to help mitigate wrongful interpretations of scientific outputs.