Ten simple rules for effective online outreach.
Open accessAbstract
Online science outreach is paradoxically both easy and difficult.While anyone can start a blog and post updates to Twitter, it can be extremely challenging to establish a long-term following and demonstrate solid measures of success.A daunting number of online tools and platforms exist, and choosing where to start can be a difficult task in itself (for an explanation and guide to online tools, see [1]).As practicing scientists who have contributed to the highly visited marine science blog Deep-Sea News (DSN) for up to nine years, we provide guidance on how scientists, who often have minimal excess time and more pressing priorities, can maximally utilize new media tools.Here, we describe ten rules for conducting effective online outreach, so that other scientists can also enjoy the advantages of disseminating their knowledge and expertise through social media.
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
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?
Social media can be used to host online outreach events.
“You can also use social media to communicate your research to a broader audience and host online outreach events [10].”
From Ten simple rules for improving communication among scientists (2022) · cites this paper as [10]
Social media can be used to communicate research to a broader audience.
“You can also use social media to communicate your research to a broader audience and host online outreach events [10].”
From Ten simple rules for improving communication among scientists (2022) · cites this paper as [10]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 11 · Cited by 59
- Authors
- Bik, H. M., Dove, A. D. M., Goldstein, M. C., Helm, R. R., MacPherson, R., Martini, K., Warneke, A., & McClain, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- Georgia Aquarium (US)
- California Sea Grant (US)
- Brown University (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- San Diego State University (US)
- National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bik, Holly M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- PLOS Computational Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2015-04-16
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e1003906
- ISSN
- 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
- 1553-7358
- PMC
- PMC4399988
- OpenAlex
- W2072134324
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (vor)
- Locations
- PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1262480)
- Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
- Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean
- North Pacific Research Board
- NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Keywords
- social media, science communication, new media technologies, blogging, Twitter, audience engagement
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Communication, Online Systems, Publishing, Research Design, Science, Models, Organizational, Information Dissemination, Social Media
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
