Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-05-05 11:06:29 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: D98C288F7BC84572E79E449CA216E66E98605720CFFED2285541F1B3283ED213
Participant Details

Original Note:

It's perplexing why @Nature would feature the unimpressive views of an unknown individual. This serves as a clear illustration of the prestigious journal's failure to consider the author's "conflict of interest." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351978730_Growth_of_Indian_Research_in_Science_and_Technology_A_Scientometric_Analysis

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1787005295278928366
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - D98C288F7BC84572E79E449CA216E66E98605720CFFED2285541F1B3283ED213
  • createdAtMillis - 1714907189557
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 1
  • helpfulImportantContext - 1
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 1
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1787005295278928366D98C288F7BC84572E79E449CA216E66E98605720CFFED2285541F1B3283ED213