The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dissecting a Social Botnet: Growth, Content and Influence in Twitter
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Bots and spamming accounts are increasingly prevalent”
From Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries (2019) · cites this paper as Abokhodair et al., 2015
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Measuring user influence in twitter: The million follower fallacy
Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., & Gummadi, K. (2010) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v4i1.14033 · Cited by 3,022 · cited 1×
“We relied on retweet data to begin a social network analysis because that action is more indicative of attention to content of the tweet [4].”
Method
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- 10.1145/1177080.1177086 · DOI
- 10.1145/1880071.1880101 · DOI
- 10.5555/2228340.2228358 · DOI
- Cheng , A. , & Evans , M. (2009, August 1). Twitter Statistics - An In-depth Report At Most Active Twitter Users. Social media monitoring and analytics solutions. Retrieved June 3, 2014 , from https://www.sysomos.com/insidetwitter/mostactiveuser s/ Cheng, A., & Evans, M. (2009, August 1). Twitter Statistics - An In-depth Report At Most Active Twitter Users. Social media monitoring and analytics solutions. Retrieved June 3, 2014, from https://www.sysomos.com/insidetwitter/mostactiveuser s/
- El-Nawawy , M. , & Khamis , S. ( 2012 ). Political activism 2.0: Comparing the role of social media in Egypt's "Facebook Revolution" and Iran's "Twitter Uprising".CyberOrient. Online Journal of the Virtual Middle East, 6 El-Nawawy, M., & Khamis, S. (2012). Political activism 2.0: Comparing the role of social media in Egypt's "Facebook Revolution" and Iran's "Twitter Uprising".CyberOrient. Online Journal of the Virtual Middle East, 6
- Fleiss , J. L. , Levin , B. , & Paik , M. C. ( 2013 ). Statistical methods for rates and proportions . John Wiley & Sons . Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2013). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. John Wiley & Sons.
- 10.1080/1369118X.2013.873069 · DOI
- 10.1109/TNET.2011.2126591 · DOI
- 10.1109/MC.2012.82 · DOI
- Karasaridis , A. , Rexroad , B. , and Hoeflin , D . (2007, April). Wide-scale botnet detection and characterization . In Proceedings of the first conference on First Workshop on Hot Topics in Understanding Botnets (Vol. 7). Karasaridis, A., Rexroad, B., and Hoeflin, D. (2007, April). Wide-scale botnet detection and characterization. In Proceedings of the first conference on First Workshop on Hot Topics in Understanding Botnets (Vol. 7).
- Landis , J. R. , & Koch , G. G. ( 1977 ). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics, 159--174 . Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics, 159--174.
- 10.1023/A:1008636204963 · DOI
- 10.1145/2501654.2501659 · DOI
- 10.1145/2145204.2145212 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/1989656.1989664 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/1324198.1324205 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ferrara, E., Varol, O., Davis, C., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2016) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/2818717 · Cited by 1,973
Online Human-Bot Interactions: Detection, Estimation, and Characterization
Varol, O., Ferrara, E., Davis, C., Menczer, F., & Flammini, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14871 · Cited by 981
Social Data: Biases, Methodological Pitfalls, and Ethical Boundaries
Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., & Kıcıman, E. (2019) · Frontiers in Big Data · doi:10.3389/fdata.2019.00013 · Cited by 763
Arming the public with artificial intelligence to counter social bots
Yang, K., Varol, O., Davis, C. A., Ferrara, E., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2019) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1002/hbe2.115 · Cited by 419
“Abokhodair et al. (2015) dissected a botnet that tried to misdirect the online discussion during the Syrian civil war in 2012.”
BackgroundStarbird, K., Arif, A., & Wilson, T. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359229 · Cited by 370
Metadata
- Authors
- Abokhodair, N., Yoo, D., & McDonald, D. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2015-02-28
- Pages
- 839-851
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 1
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dissecting a Social Botnet: Growth, Content and Influence in Twitter. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/2675133.2675208
- The paper
- Abokhodair, N., Yoo, D., & McDonald, D. W. (2015). Dissecting a Social Botnet: Growth, Content and Influence in Twitter. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675208
