Tweets Analysis - Keyword: @martinenserink
Overview
Total number of tweets analysed
14
Earliest tweet was on
2023-02-20
Latest tweet was on
2023-02-27
Tweets covering
6 days
Average age of authors' accounts
9 years
Types of Tweets
Number of Retweets
4
Percentage of total tweets
28%
Number of Original tweets
0
Percentage of total tweets
0%
Number of tweets that contain Mentions
14
Percentage of total tweets
100%
Number of tweets that were Replies
10
Percentage of total tweets
71%
Number of tweets that were Quotes
0
Percentage of total tweets
0%
Number of tweets that contain Hashtags
1
Percentage of total tweets
7%
Top 5 devices used to tweet
| Source | Count |
|---|---|
| Twitter Web App | 10 |
| Twitter for iPhone | 3 |
| Twitter for Android | 1 |
What devices were used to tweet
Top 10 accounts with highest followers count
| Username | Name | Bio | Followers count |
|---|---|---|---|
| FredrikJutfelt | Fredrik Jutfelt 🐠 | Professor @NTNUnorway and @goteborgsuni. Animal physiology, climate change, scientific misconduct jutfelt@mastodon.online | 6,076 |
| PaoloMomigliano | Paolo Momigliano | Assistant Professor @HKUSBS. Evolutionary, ecological and conservation genetics of marine critters. #newPI | 438 |
| jim_bouldin | Jim Bouldin | I study vegetation change over the last two centuries in the USA. Also interested in scientific deceit and incompetence. | 262 |
| borna77719234 | borna | - | 0 |
Top 10 accounts with highest friends count
| Username | Name | Bio | Followers count |
|---|---|---|---|
| FredrikJutfelt | Fredrik Jutfelt 🐠 | Professor @NTNUnorway and @goteborgsuni. Animal physiology, climate change, scientific misconduct jutfelt@mastodon.online | 3,214 |
| PaoloMomigliano | Paolo Momigliano | Assistant Professor @HKUSBS. Evolutionary, ecological and conservation genetics of marine critters. #newPI | 731 |
| jim_bouldin | Jim Bouldin | I study vegetation change over the last two centuries in the USA. Also interested in scientific deceit and incompetence. | 27 |
| borna77719234 | borna | - | 10 |
Most active users
| Username | Bio | Number of tweets |
|---|---|---|
| jim_bouldin | I study vegetation change over the last two centuries in the USA. Also interested in scientific deceit and incompetence. | 7 |
| PaoloMomigliano | Assistant Professor @HKUSBS. Evolutionary, ecological and conservation genetics of marine critters. #newPI | 4 |
| FredrikJutfelt | Professor @NTNUnorway and @goteborgsuni. Animal physiology, climate change, scientific misconduct jutfelt@mastodon.online | 2 |
| borna77719234 | - | 1 |
Tweets per day
Top 10 tweets with highest Retweet count
| ID | Text | Retweet count |
|---|---|---|
| 1630163010554585094 | @martinenserink @MichaelPriceSci @SciReports #IRGCterrorists#WalkoutIRI#MahsaAmini | 0 |
| 1628560932615106560 | @jim_bouldin @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink It’s not a simple issue. if you claim data are fabricated without excluding other possibilities, you are (rightly) liable. The issue is the content of internal investigations are rarely disclosed. Can you see how retracting a paper based on undisclosed evidence is problematic? | 0 |
| 1628559700727046144 | @jim_bouldin @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink Suspecting and presuming aren’t the same. If you read the thread from which this conversation started, the issue is that the university didn’t share the content of their investigation with ProcB, and without that ProcB concluded they didn’t have proof the data were fabricated. | 0 |
| 1628557106474364929 | @PaoloMomigliano @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink No, I'm not. Suspecting and presuming are just slight variations of the same thing, if that. If the system is truly fair, then they'll get a fair hearing. But it's neither fair nor open, and so all we have is statements we're supposed to take on faith, with eyes closed. | 0 |
| 1628165818675793922 | @jim_bouldin @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink I am not naïf, and I am reasonably sure the data are fabricated. You are confusing suspecting someone with presuming they are guilty. And you are confusing achieving the right outcome in one specific situation with having a system that is fair, beyond one specific outcome. | 0 |
| 1628054782014377984 | @PaoloMomigliano @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink Which would not be surprising, because there is a very large number of naive people in academia in general. | 0 |
| 1628051860098523136 | @PaoloMomigliano @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink If you think that somebody already known to have fabricated data in one paper, wouldn't be suspect of doing the same in another paper on the same topic, then you are incredibly naive. Criminals tend to repeat their crimes, whether you believe it or not. | 0 |
| 1627970965853593601 | @jim_bouldin @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink @jim_bouldin this is a terrible thing to say. Try to apply this idea to criminal justice, i.e. reverse the burden of proof for anyone with a prior conviction, and you get an idea of where such way of thinking leads. | 0 |
| 1627798934373400578 | @PaoloMomigliano @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink They're not independent, they were published by common authors. If you have evidence of fabricated data in one paper, the presumption of innocence in the other is not granted. | 0 |
| 1627796889390268416 | @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink They're not interested in scientific integrity in terms of what that actually requires. They're interested in claiming that they're interested in scientific integrity. | 0 |
Top 10 tweets with highest Like count
| ID | Text | Like count |
|---|---|---|
| 1630163010554585094 | @martinenserink @MichaelPriceSci @SciReports #IRGCterrorists#WalkoutIRI#MahsaAmini | 0 |
| 1628560932615106560 | @jim_bouldin @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink It’s not a simple issue. if you claim data are fabricated without excluding other possibilities, you are (rightly) liable. The issue is the content of internal investigations are rarely disclosed. Can you see how retracting a paper based on undisclosed evidence is problematic? | 0 |
| 1628559700727046144 | @jim_bouldin @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink Suspecting and presuming aren’t the same. If you read the thread from which this conversation started, the issue is that the university didn’t share the content of their investigation with ProcB, and without that ProcB concluded they didn’t have proof the data were fabricated. | 0 |
| 1628557106474364929 | @PaoloMomigliano @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink No, I'm not. Suspecting and presuming are just slight variations of the same thing, if that. If the system is truly fair, then they'll get a fair hearing. But it's neither fair nor open, and so all we have is statements we're supposed to take on faith, with eyes closed. | 0 |
| 1628165818675793922 | @jim_bouldin @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink I am not naïf, and I am reasonably sure the data are fabricated. You are confusing suspecting someone with presuming they are guilty. And you are confusing achieving the right outcome in one specific situation with having a system that is fair, beyond one specific outcome. | 0 |
| 1628054782014377984 | @PaoloMomigliano @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink Which would not be surprising, because there is a very large number of naive people in academia in general. | 0 |
| 1628051860098523136 | @PaoloMomigliano @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink If you think that somebody already known to have fabricated data in one paper, wouldn't be suspect of doing the same in another paper on the same topic, then you are incredibly naive. Criminals tend to repeat their crimes, whether you believe it or not. | 0 |
| 1627970965853593601 | @jim_bouldin @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink @jim_bouldin this is a terrible thing to say. Try to apply this idea to criminal justice, i.e. reverse the burden of proof for anyone with a prior conviction, and you get an idea of where such way of thinking leads. | 0 |
| 1627798934373400578 | @PaoloMomigliano @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink They're not independent, they were published by common authors. If you have evidence of fabricated data in one paper, the presumption of innocence in the other is not granted. | 0 |
| 1627796889390268416 | @dom_roche @erik_postma @RSocPublishing @martinenserink They're not interested in scientific integrity in terms of what that actually requires. They're interested in claiming that they're interested in scientific integrity. | 0 |
Top 3 Languages Used In Tweets
Top 10 Hashtags used
| Hashtag | Count |
|---|---|
| #irgcterrorists | 1 |
Top 10 Hashtags Used In Tweets
Top 10 mentions
| Mention | Count |
|---|---|
| @martinenserink | 14 |
| @dom_roche | 12 |
| @erik_postma | 12 |
| @rsocpublishing | 12 |
| @jim_bouldin | 5 |
| @paolomomigliano | 4 |
| @michaelpricesci | 1 |
| @scireports | 1 |
Top 10 mentions
Wordcloud of Tweets
