Research examining how social media affects society has expanded rapidly since 2010. It spans mental health, political polarization, and misinformation. Similar questions about digital platforms also appear in reporting on the impact of social media on student mental health. A recent preprint finds that a significant share of this work involves undisclosed links between researchers and social media companies. The analysis shows how often those connections appear in leading journals and how they may shape research priorities.
Table of contents
- Joe Bak-Coleman and University of Washington analysis
- Cailin O’Connor and University of California Irvine perspective
- Sander van der Linden and University of Cambridge response
- Naomi Oreskes, Meta, and research focus patterns
Joe Bak-Coleman and University of Washington analysis
A preprint led by Joe Bak-Coleman of the University of Washington reports that nearly one-third of major social media studies contain undisclosed industry ties. The team reviewed research published after 2010 in Science, Nature, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, plus offshoots such as Science Advances and Nature Communications.
They identified 295 articles. Together, these papers:
- accumulated 50,000 citations
- appeared in more than 15,000 news stories
In 20% of the papers, authors disclosed some form of industry connection, such as funding or recent collaboration. Further checks using OpenAlex and company announcements showed that about half of all papers had some link to social media firms. This suggests that around 30% of studies failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest.
Cailin O’Connor and University of California Irvine perspective
The authors stress that the issue is systemic, not about individual misconduct. “For any individual case, you can be like, ‘here's why I didn't disclose’ and it's probably not going to sound all that unreasonable,” says co-author Cailin O’Connor of the University of California, Irvine. “But when you take it all together, something unreasonable is happening.”
For papers that named editors and reviewers, the researchers checked those roles as well. Including undisclosed ties among editors and reviewers raised the share of industry-linked papers to 66%. After extrapolating to anonymous reviews, the team estimated that only 1 in 5 papers remained fully independent throughout the publication process.
Sander van der Linden and University of Cambridge response
The findings drew strong reactions. “Really shocking and completely unacceptable,” says Sander van der Linden of the University of Cambridge, who was not involved in the study. He adds, “I suspect it's not always nefarious.”
Van der Linden notes that conflict-of-interest standards are less established in social science than in medicine. He argues that better training on disclosure may be needed. He also highlights a structural issue. Social media companies control key datasets. As a result, experiments such as altering a feed in the Instagram app often require collaboration with industry, a problem also discussed in broader debates on smartphones, privacy, and social media.
Naomi Oreskes, Meta, and research focus patterns
The study also examined whether industry-linked research emphasized certain topics. According to Naomi Oreskes of Harvard University, other industries offer precedents. She points to long-term funding by Coca-Cola for research on exercise and obesity.
The team found similar patterns in social media research:
- studies on why individuals share misinformation were more common in industry-linked work
- analyses of platform dynamics and algorithms, including polarization effects, were rare
“While we cannot definitively show that industry funding in this area is redirecting attention from products to consumers, our results are consistent with this possibility,” the authors write. Van der Linden calls concerns about topic choice a “false dilemma,” arguing multiple research paths can coexist.
Some scholars defend collaboration. Shelby Grossman of Arizona State University says partnerships can generate valuable knowledge. She also stresses that full disclosure remains essential, especially as U.S. funding cuts push universities toward private-sector cooperation. Related discussions on public trust and belief formation appear in research on why the search for meaning drives conspiracy theories.
The preprint concludes with a call for journals to audit past publications and correct the record where disclosure rules were breached. According to Bak-Coleman, such steps would improve transparency and reinforce author responsibilities without targeting individuals.
FAQ
What did the new preprint reveal about social media research?
The preprint found that nearly one-third of studies on social media published in major interdisciplinary journals contained undisclosed ties between authors and social media companies.
How many articles were analyzed in the study?
Researchers reviewed 295 articles published after 2010, which together accumulated about 50,000 citations and appeared in more than 15,000 news stories.
What types of industry ties were often not disclosed?
Undisclosed ties included receiving funding from social media companies and previously co-authoring research with employees of those companies.
Did industry-linked studies focus on different research topics?
Yes, industry-linked studies more often examined why individuals share misinformation, while research on platform algorithms and their role in polarization was less common.
Source: SCIENCE