A new wave of Bluesky migration is reshaping where scientists network, share results, and follow research in 2025. Polling, platform analytics, and a large-scale preprint converge on a clear trend: researchers are exiting X (formerly Twitter) amid declining professional value and higher toxicity, and they are rebuilding more collegial, higher-engagement communities on Bluesky. The implications span outreach, hiring, and the visibility of new papers, with network effects accelerating the shift across disciplines [2].

Key Takeaways

– Shows 70% of roughly 6,000 Nature poll respondents use Bluesky, while 53% report leaving X; 85% identified as working scientists [2]. – Reveals 18% transition among 300,000 sampled academics; two-thirds of exits via simple contagion, 16% from shock-driven bursts [1]. – Demonstrates science posts on Bluesky outperform X: nearly 50% receive 10+ likes, and one-third are reposted at least 10 times [3]. – Indicates engagement rises as researchers rebuild networks on Bluesky; Cox models and matched-pairs show stronger outreach after migration [1]. – Suggests institutional momentum: the European Medicines Agency quit X for Bluesky, joining shifts by German ministries and media brands in 2025 [5].

What the data says about Bluesky migration

Evidence that the scientific conversation is moving is mounting. In a Nature news poll of about 6,000 readers, 70% said they use Bluesky and 53% reported they had left X entirely, with 85% identifying as working scientists [2]. Respondents described Bluesky as “much better for science,” citing lower toxicity and stronger collegiality than they now encounter on X [2].

A May 30 preprint on arXiv analyzed activity among 300,000 academics and estimated an 18% transition rate from X to Bluesky within the sampled cohort [1]. The authors attribute roughly two-thirds of exits to simple contagion—researchers follow colleagues—while 16% occurred during shock-driven bursts tied to external events [1]. Using time-varying Cox models and a matched-pairs design, the paper reports that scientists who rebuilt networks on Bluesky subsequently saw higher engagement with their posts [1].

Bluesky migration accelerates as engagement outpaces X

For science communications, attention matters—and Bluesky is delivering more of it. A study highlighted by the Guardian assessed 2.6 million Bluesky posts linking to more than 500,000 academic articles and found higher likes, reposts, replies, and quotes than comparable posts on X [3]. Nearly 50% of scientific posts on Bluesky earned at least ten likes, and one-third were reposted ten or more times, indicating a thicker layer of interaction around new research [3].

Researchers quoted in the coverage argued that Bluesky’s focused, less hostile dialogue helps amplify serious content relative to X’s increasingly fractious environment [3]. The result is a platform better tuned for method discussion, replication questions, and early feedback—interactions that can directly affect how fast findings diffuse through a field [3].

Why scientists are leaving X

Personal testimonies and reporting from within academia point to a common set of reasons for the shift. Researchers describe X as more toxic since moderation rollbacks, with fewer collegial exchanges and a weaker ratio of signal to noise for scholarly updates [4]. One scientist summed up Bluesky as “slower and more boring — but good,” a trade-off many are willing to accept for better professional interactions [4].

Institutional decisions reinforce this turn. On 27 January 2025, the European Medicines Agency announced it was leaving X to publish on Bluesky, stating X “no longer satisfies our needs” and citing content concerns [5]. Reuters noted the EMA’s move followed similar shifts by German ministries and some media outlets, signaling coordinated changes in official communication strategies away from X [5].

Inside the network effects driving Bluesky migration

The arXiv preprint suggests the migration is not just individual dissatisfaction but a social contagion process, where each departure increases the odds that colleagues follow [1]. The authors estimate two-thirds of measured exits align with simple contagion dynamics: as clusters of collaborators and co-authors move, the professional value of staying on X erodes further for those left behind [1].

The paper also identifies a complementary mechanism: 16% of exits happened in bursts linked to platform shocks, such as policy changes or moderation controversies that catalyze simultaneous switches [1]. Methodologically, the study used time-varying Cox proportional hazards models to estimate migration risk over time and matched-pairs to compare similar researchers before and after switching [1]. The finding that engagement rises after network rebuilding indicates a reinforcing loop that makes staying on Bluesky increasingly worthwhile [1].

Practical implications for outreach, hiring, and open science

For labs, journals, and funders seeking reach, the data argues for a proactive Bluesky presence. If nearly half of science posts attract at least ten likes and a third are reposted ten or more times, the platform offers a reliable floor of visibility that can boost preprints, job ads, and calls for participation [3]. Given the proportion of working scientists already active there, strategic announcements may reach a more receptive audience [2].

Communications teams should also account for the social geometry of migration. Because simple contagion dominates, cultivating field-specific Bluesky communities—method tags, seminar series, and lab lists—can accelerate discovery and collaboration once a few well-connected nodes engage [1]. As major agencies like the EMA redraw their channels, researchers and the public will find more authoritative updates on Bluesky first, shifting media monitoring habits accordingly [5].

What to watch next: benefits, gaps, and open questions

The Nature poll captures a large and influential readership, but as a reader survey it may not represent all disciplines equally; results should be interpreted with that caveat in mind [2]. The arXiv findings are preprint results pending peer review, though the methods and sample size offer unusual scale for a social media migration study [1].

A lingering question is how onboarding friction and culture will evolve as Bluesky grows. Some researchers value the “slower” pace, but growth can challenge moderation and norms, potentially affecting the collegial advantages reported so far [4]. Measuring cross-platform spillovers—how attention on Bluesky maps to citations, code reuse, or datasets—will be a critical next step for research impact tracking [3].

Method notes and dataset sizes behind the shift

The migration estimates come from an arXiv preprint that tracked 300,000 academics, modeling movement with time-varying Cox approaches and matched-pairs for causal leverage [1]. The transition rate reported for the sampled scholars is 18%, with mechanism breakdowns of two-thirds simple contagion and 16% shock-driven [1].

Engagement statistics derive from an analysis of 2.6 million Bluesky posts linking to more than 500,000 academic articles, benchmarking likes, reposts, replies, and quotes against X [3]. The Nature poll informing adoption figures surveyed roughly 6,000 readers, 85% of whom said they were working scientists [2]. On the institutional front, the European Medicines Agency’s January 27 decision provides a concrete example of official communications moving to Bluesky [5].

Sources:

[1] arXiv (preprint) – Why Academics Are Leaving Twitter for Bluesky: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.24801

[2] Nature – Bluesky’s science takeover: 70% of Nature poll respondents use platform: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00177-1 [3] The Guardian – Science research gets more engagement on Bluesky than X, study finds: www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/01/science-research-gets-more-engagement-on-bluesky-than-x-study-finds” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/01/science-research-gets-more-engagement-on-bluesky-than-x-study-finds

[4] Science (AAAS) – As academic Bluesky grows, researchers find strengths—and shortcomings: www.science.org/content/article/academic-bluesky-grows-researchers-find-strengths-and-shortcomings” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>https://www.science.org/content/article/academic-bluesky-grows-researchers-find-strengths-and-shortcomings [5] Reuters – EU medicines agency quits X, moves to Bluesky: www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-medicines-agency-quits-x-moves-bluesky-2025-01-27/” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-medicines-agency-quits-x-moves-bluesky-2025-01-27/

Image generated by DALL-E 3