| Title |
Spread of Misinformation About Face Masks and COVID-19 by Automated Software on Facebook
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JAMA Internal Medicine, September 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.2498 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John W. Ayers, Brian Chu, Zechariah Zhu, Eric C. Leas, Davey M. Smith, Mark Dredze, David A. Broniatowski |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 353 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 93 | 26% |
| Canada | 16 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 3% |
| Japan | 6 | 2% |
| Australia | 4 | 1% |
| Italy | 4 | 1% |
| Spain | 4 | 1% |
| Philippines | 4 | 1% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 3 | <1% |
| Other | 28 | 8% |
| Unknown | 182 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 283 | 80% |
| Scientists | 45 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 18 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 7 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 16% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 27 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 892. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2023.
All research outputs
#18,354
of 24,506,807 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Internal Medicine
#183
of 5,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#674
of 421,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Internal Medicine
#7
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,506,807 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 162.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,042 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.