The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
“Participant” Perceptions of Twitter Research Ethics
Open accessAbstract
Social computing systems such as Twitter present new research sites that have provided billions of data points to researchers. However, the availability of public social media data has also presented ethical challenges. As the research community works to create ethical norms, we should be considering users’ concerns as well. With this in mind, we report on an exploratory survey of Twitter users’ perceptions of the use of tweets in research. Within our survey sample, few users were previously aware that their public tweets could be used by researchers, and the majority felt that researchers should not be able to use tweets without consent. However, we find that these attitudes are highly contextual, depending on factors such as how the research is conducted or disseminated, who is conducting it, and what the study is about. The findings of this study point to potential best practices for researchers conducting observation and analysis of public data.
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.
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
Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis
Brink, E., Dellve, L., Hallberg, U., Abrahamsson, K. H., Klingberg, G., & Wentz, K. (2006) · International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being · doi:10.3402/qhw.v1i3.4932 · Cited by 6,862
Twitter mood predicts the stock market
Bollen, J., Mao, H., & Zeng, X. (2011) · Journal of Computational Science · doi:10.1016/j.jocs.2010.12.007 · Cited by 5,206
I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, D. (2011) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444810365313 · Cited by 4,612
Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002205 · Cited by 3,767
Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks
Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1320040111 · Cited by 3,687
Earthquake shakes Twitter users: real-time event detection by social sensors
Sakaki, T., Okazaki, M., & Matsuo, Y. (2010) · Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web · doi:10.1145/1772690.1772777 · Cited by 3,640
(2003) · Manual for Research Ethics Committees · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511550089.028 · Cited by 3,413
Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1753 · Cited by 2,242 · cited 2×
“Attention checks are a common mechanism in MTurk surveys to ensure that respondents are reading the questions and instructions rather than simply checking random boxes (Goodman et al., 2013; Hauser & Schwarz, 2016).”
BackgroundHauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z · Cited by 1,739
Signorini, A., Segre, A. M., & Polgreen, P. M. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019467 · Cited by 1,235
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Adams R. C., 1989, Social survey methods for mass media resarch
- Bravo-Lillo C., 2013, Cyber-Security Research Ethics Dialog & Strategy Workshop
- Bromseth J. C. H., 2002, Resesarching ICTs in context, 33
- Fiesler C., 2017, Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW), 567
- Hartzong W. N., 2013, California Law Review, 101, 1
- Hoffmann A. L., 2016, Internet research ethics for the social age: New cases and challenges, 3
- Kogan M., 2016, Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW), 981
- Lamb A., 2013, Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL, 789
- McNeal G., 2014, Forbes
- Meeder B., 2010, Web 2.0 Security and Privacy, 28
- Nissenbaum H., 2004, Washington Law Review, 79, 101
- Nuremburg Code, 1949, In Trials of War Criminals before Nuremburg Military Tribunals
- Reidenberg J. R., 2015, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 30, 39
- Tufekci Z., 2014, Proceedings of the AAAI International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM)
- Tumasjan A., 2010, Proceedings of the AAAI International Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM), 178
- Vaccaro K., 2015, 2015 CSCW Workshop on Ethics for Studying Sociotechnical Systems in a Big Data World
- World Medical Association, 2013, WMA Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects
Cited by
#HashtagActivism: Networks of Race and Gender Justice
Jackson, S. J., Bailey, M., & Foucault Welles, B. (2020) · MIT Press · doi:10.7551/mitpress/10858.001.0001 · Cited by 693
Studying Reddit: A Systematic Overview of Disciplines, Approaches, Methods, and Ethics
Proferes, N., Jones, N., Gilbert, S., Fiesler, C., & Zimmer, M. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051211019004 · Cited by 537
“Fiesler and Proferes (2018) conducted a survey of Twitter users to assess how they felt about their data being used.”
BackgroundSelf-citationThieme, A., Belgrave, D., & Doherty, G. (2020) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3398069 · Cited by 406
How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks
Brady, W. J., McLoughlin, K., Doan, T. N., & Crockett, M. J. (2021) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abe5641 · Cited by 375
Scheuerman, M. K., Paul, J. M., & Brubaker, J. R. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359246 · Cited by 252
Metadata
- Authors
- Fiesler, C., & Proferes, N.
- Venue
- Social Media + Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2056-3051 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2793785670
- Cited by
- 528
- References
- 50
- FWCI
- 112.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- Funders
- Division of Information and Intelligent Systems (1704369)
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: “Participant” Perceptions of Twitter Research Ethics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/2056305118763366
- The paper
- Fiesler, C., & Proferes, N. (2018). “Participant” Perceptions of Twitter Research Ethics. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118763366
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
