Cover Image

How is science discussed on Bluesky?

Fuente: arXiv

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Zheng, Er-Te, Jiang, Xiaorui, Fang, Zhichao, Thelwall, Mike
Format:	Preprint
Published:	2025
Subjects:	Digital Libraries Computers and Society
Online Access:	Acceder al recurso
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Similar Items

Science discussions of retracted articles on Bluesky: public scrutiny or misinformation spreading?
by: Zheng, Er-Te, et al.
Published: (2026)

Can news and social media attention reduce the influence of problematic research?
by: Zheng, Er-Te, et al.
Published: (2025)

Do male leading authors retract more articles than female leading authors?
by: Zheng, Er-Te, et al.
Published: (2025)

Can social media provide early warning of retraction? Evidence from critical tweets identified by human annotation and large language models
by: Zheng, Er-Te, et al.
Published: (2024)

Is OpenAlex Suitable for Research Quality Evaluation and Which Citation Indicator is Best?
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2025)

Designing large language model prompts to extract scores from messy text: A shared dataset and challenge
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2026)

Evaluating the quality of published medical research with ChatGPT
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2024)

In which fields do ChatGPT scores align better than citations with research quality?
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2025)

Research quality evaluation by AI in the era of Large Language Models: Advantages, disadvantages, and systemic effects
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2025)

Prompt perturbation and fraction facilitation sometimes strengthen Large Language Model scores
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2025)

Quantitative Methods in Research Evaluation Citation Indicators, Altmetrics, and Artificial Intelligence
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2024)

Do Large Language Models know Which Published Articles have been Retracted?
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2026)

How much are LLMs changing the language of academic papers after ChatGPT? A multi-database and full text analysis
by: Kousha, Kayvan, et al.
Published: (2025)

Evaluating the Predictive Capacity of ChatGPT for Academic Peer Review Outcomes Across Multiple Platforms
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2024)

Social media uptake of scientific journals: A comparison between X and WeChat
by: Cong, Ting, et al.
Published: (2025)

Organisational accounts engaged in scholarly communication on Twitter: Patterns of presence, activity and engagement
by: Zahedi, Zohreh, et al.
Published: (2026)

Can Smaller Large Language Models Evaluate Research Quality?
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2025)

Will AI be overconfident about academic research findings when reliant on abstracts? (v1)
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2026)

Can ChatGPT evaluate research quality?
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2024)

Evaluating Research Quality with Large Language Models: An Analysis of ChatGPT's Effectiveness with Different Settings and Inputs
by: Thelwall, Mike
Published: (2024)

A Global South Strategy for Evaluating Research Value with ChatGPT
by: Nunkoo, Robin, et al.
Published: (2025)

Estimating the quality of academic books from their descriptions with ChatGPT
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2025)

Implicit and Explicit Research Quality Score Probabilities from ChatGPT
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2025)

Which stylistic features fool ChatGPT research evaluations?
by: Kousha, Kayvan, et al.
Published: (2026)

Research evaluation with ChatGPT: Is it age, country, length, or field biased?
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2024)

In which fields can ChatGPT detect journal article quality? An evaluation of REF2021 results
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2024)

Have LLM-associated terms increased in article full texts in all fields?
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2026)

Journal Quality Factors from ChatGPT: More meaningful than Impact Factors?
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2024)

Can Large Language Models Evaluate Grant Proposal Quality? Revisiting the Wennerås and Wold Peer Review Data
by: Sandström, Ulf, et al.
Published: (2026)

Relying on recent and temporally dispersed science predicts breakthrough inventions
by: Ke, Qing, et al.
Published: (2021)

Where there's a will there's a way: ChatGPT is used more for science in countries where it is prohibited
by: Bao, Honglin, et al.
Published: (2024)

Can Small and Reasoning Large Language Models Score Journal Articles for Research Quality and Do Averaging and Few-shot Help?
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2025)

Assessing the societal influence of academic research with ChatGPT: Impact case study evaluations
by: Kousha, Kayvan, et al.
Published: (2024)

Can ChatGPT be a good follower of academic paradigms? Research quality evaluations in conflicting areas of sociology
by: Thelwall, Mike, et al.
Published: (2025)

Can ChatGPT evaluate research environments? Evidence from REF2021
by: Kousha, Kayvan, et al.
Published: (2025)

Are there stars in Bluesky? A comparative exploratory analysis of altmetric mentions between X and Bluesky
by: Arroyo-Machado, Wenceslao, et al.
Published: (2024)

Towards understanding evolution of science through language model series
by: Dong, Junjie, et al.
Published: (2024)

ICLR Points: How Many ICLR Publications Is One Paper in Each Area?
by: Luo, Zhongtang
Published: (2025)

Expertise diversity of teams predicts originality and long-term impact in science and technology
by: Li, Weihua, et al.
Published: (2022)

Demanding peer review is associated with higher impact in published science
by: Jiang, Huihuang, et al.
Published: (2026)