1 Abstract
The role of perceived experts (i.e., medical professionals and biomedical scientists) as potential anti-vaccine influencers has not been characterized systematically. We describe the prevalence and importance of anti-vaccine perceived experts by constructing a coengagement network based on a Twitter data set containing over 4.2 million posts from April 2021. The coengagement network primarily broke into two large communities that differed in their stance toward COVID-19 vaccines, and misinformation was predominantly shared by the anti-vaccine community. Perceived experts had a sizable presence within the anti-vaccine community and shared academic sources at higher rates compared to others in that community. Perceived experts occupied important network positions as central anti-vaccine nodes and bridges between the anti- and pro-vaccine communities. Perceived experts received significantly more engagements than other individuals within the anti- and pro-vaccine communities and there was no significant difference in the influence boost for perceived experts between the two communities. Interventions designed to reduce the impact of perceived experts who spread anti-vaccine misinformation may be warranted.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
MJH was funded by the Achievement Rewards for College Scientists Scholarship, the National Institutes of Health (R35GM133439), the University of Washington's Center for an Informed Public, and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. RM was funded by the Bryce and Bonnie Nelson Fellowship . EAM was funded by the National Science Foundation (DEB-2011147, with the Fogarty International Center), the National Institutes of Health (R35GM133439, R01AI168097, and R01AI102918), the Stanford King Center on Global Development, Woods Institute for the Environment, Center for Innovation in Global Health, and the Terman Award. JDW was funded by the Knight Foundation and the National Science Foundation grants 2120496 and 2230616.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Institutional Review Board of Washington University determined that this study (STUDY00017030) was exempt.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Corrected results section 2 on academic link-sharing. Prior version only accounted for pre-print sharing rather than pre-print and academic journals.
Data Availability
Code and data used to conduct main analyses and reproduce figures are available on Github at: https://github.com/mjharris95/perceived-experts. As explained in the repository, users were anonymized throughout the analysis and in the dataset. Additionally information may be provided by the corresponding author on reasonable request.
