Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI), data-driven decisions and evidence-based approaches appear to become increasingly important when establishing credibility and authority in non-academic circles. Knowing the difference between an experiment meant to illustrate a point, doing research for a degree where rigor and ethics are crucial, and doing research in a business context have transformed into a skill not only relevant for academics, but progressively for anyone reading articles on the Internet and on social media. On social media algorithms drive visibility not rigor and ethics. An experiment conducted on LinkedIn in October 2025 describes what happens when two nearly identical articles are posted at the same time and how algorithms drive visibility and conversations. Simultaneously, a critical reflection of how to identify “good research” from a practitioners’ perspective is provided. Finally, assessment criteria for the layperson are provided to foster awareness and to promote skill development and literacy in an era in which making sense to data in a self-reliant manner are indispensable across all social stratums. Key findings of the experiment highlight the importance of scientific rigor also in online research and demonstrate how easily bias and uncontrolled variables, such as resharing behaviour, can distort outcomes and conclusions. Subsequent studies may refine this initial experiment by employing more rigorous methodologies and adhering to established ethical standards in research.
References
Casas-Puente, J. G., & Gutierrez-Leyton, A. E. (2025). Bridging media and information literacy with experiential learning: Empowering students for the digital age. GILE Journal of Skills Development, 5(3), 130–147. https://doi.org/10.52398/gjsd.2025.v5.i3.pp130-147
Gilchrist, D., & Perks, B. (2023). Grey lines in grey literature: Incorporating grey literature value into the research and evaluation of public policy and the social sciences. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4630554
Isaacson, S. (2025a, October). 5 reasons scientific research might be harming the coaching profession more than helping. [Post]. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/samisaacson_coaching-research-activity-7382006998407462912-4TwM
Isaacson, S. (2025b, October). 5 reasons scientific research is absolutely necessary for the coaching profession. [Post]. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/samisaacson_coaching-research-activity-7382006922972905472-By3o
Isaacson, S. (2025c, October). How my experiment proved its own point (by failing spectacularly). [Post]. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/samisaacson_research-coaching-growthmindset-activity-7384981391115186176-OUet
Lasky, J. (2024). CRAAP test. EBSCO Research Starters. Retrieved January 8, 2026, from https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/craap-test
O’Brien, T. C., Palmer, R., & Albarracin, D. (2021). Misplaced trust: When trust in science fosters belief in pseudoscience and the benefits of critical evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, Article 104184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104184
Seth, J. (2026, January). Inspiration activity. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jayshree-seth-6287b45_inspiration-activity-7413277729980121088-X0B5
Sovacool, B. K., Axsen, J., Delina, L. L., Boudet, H. S., Rai, V., Sidortsov, R., Churchill, S. A., Jenkins, K. E. H., & Galvin, R. (2022). Towards codes of practice for navigating the academic peer review process. Energy Research & Social Science, 89, Article 102675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102675
Taddicken, M., & Krämer, N. (2021). Public online engagement with science information: On the road to a theoretical framework and a future research agenda. JCOM, 20(03), A05. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20030205
Yoshida, Y., Sitas, N., Mannetti, L., O’Farrell, P., Arroyo-Robles, G., Berbés-Blázquez, M., González-Jiménez, D., Nelson, V., Niamir, A., & Harmá?ková, Z. V. (2024). Beyond academia: A case for reviews of gray literature for science-policy processes and applied research. Environmental Science & Policy, 162, Article 103882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103882

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Ute Franzen-Waschke, Sam Isaacson