Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 17

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Astroturfing as a strategy for manipulating public opinion on Twitter during the pandemic in Spain

Arce-García, Sergio, Said-Hung, Elías, Mottareale, Daría·2022·El Profesional de la información

Abstract

This work aims to establish whether astroturfing was used during the Covid-19 pandemic to manipulate Spanish public opinion through Twitter. This study analyzes tweets published in Spanish and geolocated in the Philippines, and its first objective is to determine the existence of an organized network that directs its messages mainly towards Spain. To determine the non-existence of a random network, a preliminary collection of 1,496,596 tweets was carried out. After determining its 14 main clusters, 280 users with a medium-low profile of participation and micro- and nano-influencer traits were randomly selected and followed for 103 days, for a total of 309,947 tweets. Network science, text mining, sentiment and emotion, and bot probability analyses were performed using Gephi and R. Their network structure suggests an ultra-small-world phenomenon, which would determine the existence of a possible organized network that tries not to be easily identifiable. The data analyzed confirm a digital communication scenario in which astroturfing is used as a strategy aimed at manipulating public opinion through non-influencers (cybertroops). These users create and disseminate content with proximity and closeness to different groups of public opinion, mixing topics of general interest with disinformation or polarized content.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3145/epi.2022.may.10

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 39 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Barabasi, Albert-László (2016). Network science. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge university press. ISBN: 978 1 107 07626 6
  2. European Commission (2018). A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. ISBN: 978 92 79 80419 9 https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/739290 · doi:10.2759/739290 · Paper page
  3. Hu, Yifan (2006). “Efficient, high-quality force-directed graph drawing”. The mathematica journal, v. 10, n. 1, pp. 37-71. http://yifanhu.net/PUB/graph_draw.pdf
  4. Van-der-Veen, Han; Hiemstra, Djoerd; Van-den-Broek, Tijs; Ehrenhard, Michel; Need, Ariana (2015). “Determine the user country of a tweet”. Social and information networks. https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02483 · arXiv

Cited by

See all 17

Metadata

Authors
Arce-García, S., Said-Hung, E., & Mottareale, D.
Affiliations
Universidad Internacional de La Rioja
Venue
El Profesional de la información
Published
2022-06-06
ISSN
  • 1699-2407
  • 1386-6710
Cited by
17
References
39

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: Astroturfing as a strategy for manipulating public opinion on Twitter during the pandemic in Spain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3145/epi.2022.may.10
The paper
Arce-García, S., Said-Hung, E., & Mottareale, D. (2022). Astroturfing as a strategy for manipulating public opinion on Twitter during the pandemic in Spain. El Profesional de la información. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2022.may.10

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.