The Mistakes of Social Media Echo in Our Research World Too

Dr. Moshior Rahman

In the digital era, for those of us involved in research, policy analysis, startups, or science communication—social media is no longer just a place for entertainment. It has now become a key platform for disseminating research findings, connecting with stakeholders, and even seeking funding or collaborators. But the reality is—most of us still cannot use this platform properly. Although Emily’s story comes from the world of entrepreneurship, the same mistakes are almost equally reflected in our field of science and research.

Emily, a young entrepreneur, relied entirely on social media to develop her online clothing brand. Even though the start was good, after a while, followers and engagement began to decline, and with that, so did sales. Research shows that if engagement on any platform drops by 30 percent in the first three months, the algorithm starts showing posts to fewer people. This is exactly what happened in Emily’s case. But the problem wasn’t the platform; it was in its usage.

Emily’s first mistake—ignoring hashtags. We, as researchers, often make the same error. International surveys show that using the right keywords or scientific hashtags can increase the reach of research-related posts by 2.5 to 4 times. Yet, most researchers forget to add those hashtags when sharing their scientific discoveries, preprints, or conference posters. As a result, important knowledge remains invisible. It’s just like Emily—writing a good book and then leaving it in a forgotten corner of the shelf.

The second problem—irregularity. Sometimes Emily would be silent for weeks, then suddenly post a batch of ten in a row on a single day. Research shows that irregular posting can reduce algorithmic reach by up to 50 percent. We see the same mistake in our research world. We are often absent for long periods, then suddenly share everything at once when a publication comes out. But in knowledge sharing, consistency builds trust—your content is reliable, your presence is enduring.

The third mistake—avoiding negative feedback. Emily avoided comments, and researchers often remain silent in the face of tough questions, criticism, or revisions. Yet from peer review to open feedback, the purpose of all this is to strengthen knowledge. An international survey found that those who respond quickly to questions or critiques see 40 percent higher credibility in their research content. Running away from discomfort only makes mistakes permanent; dialogue corrects them.

The fourth mistake—not analyzing data. Emily didn’t know who was viewing her content: what age, from which region, or which post was effective. Research shows that social media analytics can increase the effectiveness of targeting and research outreach by 30 to 70 percent. For example, a European Research Council study found that labs that regularly review social media analytics are twice as likely to achieve research outreach and international collaboration.

The fifth mistake—not engaging with the audience. Emily used to post, but never replied to anyone’s comments. The same issue exists for researchers. Even when people see our content, there’s little interest to enter into lengthy discussions. Yet sharing knowledge is always a two-way process. Answering questions, sharing brief explanations, or offering encouragement—all help to build a strong scientific community. A report from the National Academy of Sciences of the USA states that regular conversations between scientists and the public are 30 percent more effective in countering misinformation.

Emily’s story doesn’t end there. Realizing her mistakes, she adopted a new strategy—regular posting, correct hashtags, replying to comments, and using analytics. Within three months, her sales jumped by 65 percent. After starting to use data, her post reach also doubled. This kind of ‘restart’ is applicable in our research world too. Making mistakes isn’t unusual; not correcting them is dangerous.

So now the question is—do we still see social media as only a place to post, or as a powerful medium for research outreach? Do we share regularly, or just show up occasionally? Do we answer questions, or avoid them? Do we check analytics, or ignore the data? The answers to these questions decide—how far our knowledge will reach, how many people will read it, and how many will be inspired by the research.

Social media changes rapidly on one hand, but one thing remains constant—people always value caring, consistency, and authentic engagement. For researchers, this is even more important, because every part of our work has an impact on society.

So ask yourself—is your digital presence haphazard, or consciously crafted? Is your research hiding in the dark on a shelf, or ready to shine before the world? If you want the latter, conscious use is the only way. Social media becomes truly powerful only when we can bring it into service of science.