Dissertation chapter finally published! @MishaTeplitskiy @DanielMRomero @agnes. We show that men play the research game much harder than women. It speaks to the phrase "buzz men, warm women". The downside is that savvy players are harder to unplug from the game.

New research from @sophiehsqq @haoopeng @UzziLeadership and colleagues suggests there is an association between promotional language and biomedical grant funding success.

Studies like this mostly compare fraction of faculties to US population. I bet the finding might be different if using the fraction of authors as baseline -- a lay person working in service industry is unlikely to become PI in the first place. People's choice matters.

Innovation really involves two processes: ideation & communication. Our paper finds that promotional words can help to show the merits of good ideas in funding. Scientists need to pay more attention to the communication process to drive innovation success:

How are the merits of innovative ideas communicated in science? New research in @PNASNews analyzes the relationship between promotional language and the probability of funding, innovativeness, and citation impact. w/ @haoopeng @sophiehsqq & Henrik B Fosse https://t.co/0OpNwrvCbl

Researchers with minority ethnic names are written out of stories about their work. https://t.co/VWOc7QMBFH

👀ICYMI: @haoopeng @MishaTeplitskiy & @david__jurgens show researchers with non-Anglo names are more likely to not be directly named in news stories and have their names replaced with those of their institutions. #Journalism #Media #AcademicTwitter

“Scientists with East Asian and African names are less likely to be mentioned or quoted in stories that reference their work.” Findings from a study of US based media coverage by @haoopeng @MishaTeplitskiy @david__jurgens summarised by @k_langin

💥New: Researchers with minority ethnic names are written out of US science journalism @haoopeng @MishaTeplitskiy & @david__jurgens #AcWri #SciComm

Why would name mentions matter? While, it does for us, at least in EB1A visa application.

Scientists with East Asian, African names less likely to be mentioned in news stories referencing their work: says study led by @haoopeng at @NorthwesternU (study authors note methods of identifying name origins likely led to some classification errors). https://t.co/1YWmYb7c93

Excited to see this research with @haoopeng and @MishaTeplitskiy getting covered. Representation matters in science news!

🚨 Is novel research worth doing?🚨 There are serious concerns about slowdown in innovation. Are institutions to blame? In science, does peer review discourage novel work? Paper with @haoopeng @mrblasco and @klakhani finds the opposite! https://t.co/7JunAYqFDt 1/n

"This is striking as we also find that retracted papers are pervasive across mediums, receiving more attention after publication than nonretracted papers even on curated platforms..." A study in @PNASNews using the Retraction Watch Database.

"Overall, this analysis suggests that Twitter readily hosts critical discussion of problematic papers well before they get retracted. These discussions credit voices that are actively helping to improve science-related discussions in digital media."

In fact, 80% of retracted papers receive no mentions over the 2 months preceding their retraction. Retractions thus have a limited effect on curbing uncritical online discussions of problematic papers!

Finally, we find that (3) retractions are not effective in reducing attention to retracted papers because they come too late. By the time the retraction is issued, most papers have already exhausted their attention. 6/

However, not all mentions of these papers are uncritical. We find that (2) discussions on social media express more criticism toward retracted papers and may thus contain early signals of unreliable work. This shows the power of collective intelligence! 5/

By comparing 4k retracted papers spanning a nearly 10-y period to similar non-retracted papers, we find that (1) retracted papers are pervasive across mediums, receiving *more* attention than non-retracted papers on social media but also in digital news. 4/

Our paper examines three Qs: (1) How much attention do retracted papers generate across different platforms before retraction? (2) What type of attention do they get? Do they generate excitement, criticism, or both? (3) Are retractions effective in reducing attention to them? 3/