From impact metrics and open science to communicating research: Journalists’ awareness of academic controversies

Introduction

Academia is a constantly evolving landscape—not only in terms of the innovative research being published, but also in terms of how researchers share their work with the public. This is due to several factors, including the growing popularity of the open access/open movement as well as the increased use of preprints. Preprints allow research to be accessed by a wider range of people before the peer-review process is complete. These shifts have undoubtedly changed the way that scientists interact with the literature and current research, but is it also affecting how science is being relayed to journalists—and, subsequently, the general public?

This preprint highlights how journalism and academic research are heavily intertwined. The authors investigate not only how journalists interact with academic research and scientists to vet which research is worthy of reporting, but also the awareness of journalists of current ‘hot topics’ in the scientific community, such as preprints, open access/science, and the ‘publish-or-perish’ culture. This preprint discusses the reliance that journalists have on scientists to both access and explain research, but also of scientists’ dependence on journalists to share their research with a wider audience.

Key Findings:

• Among science journalists, there is a wide variation in the overall awareness and understanding of the science they report and of the ongoing debates in scholarly communication.
• Science journalists mostly rely on individual scientists or press offices as their primary source of information. Often, scientists are the main source and are relied on as experts.
• If the awareness of science journalists regarding debates in scholarly communication is limited, there is more acceptance of the current peer-review system and more value is placed on ‘high’ impact journals.
• If the awareness of science journalists regarding debates in scholarly communication is higher, there is often more direct scrutiny of the data being reported.
• The ability of scientists to interpret (and sometimes also access) research findings influences the information provided to journalists. Scientists, in turn, rely on journalists to get their work out there. In short, both parties rely heavily on one another.

Key quotes (from preprint)

“..[Preprints are] the way that scientists talk quickly to each other, and especially as people realize that they don’t have easy access to the big journals because they cost a lot of money and they’re behind paywalls, that this becomes much more of a way for scientists to talk to each other and to a potential audience for that work.” (← Preprint usage by journalists).

“I would hope that [scientific experts] are a resource I can trust, you know, and, again, that gets into a tricky thing, because, you know, if I can’t tell that they’re wrong, you know, who’s going to tell me they’re wrong?” (← Reliance on science experts).

What we liked about this preprint

Jenn: This article addresses a very important topic in science communication- the relationship between the journalists that report science to the wider public and the scientists that conduct the research. This preprint really made me think about how I interact with the public and the responsibility I have in communicating science.

Sristi: It’s great to see that the authors highlight the facts from the perspectives of the journalists and the coordination between journalists and researchers that plays a critical role in accurately portraying a study led by a research team. Other interesting points the preprint has addressed are the limitations and potential challenges the entire process may entail, which could lead to a misleading portrayal of the content.

Isabella: This preprint highlights an interesting codependency between scientists and journalists that can influence the research that journalists cover and the way they report it. This study also reveals potential gaps present in how writers are trained to approach and interpret research, particularly if they do not have previous scientific training. The implications of this preprint will be important for assessing the current efficacy of science writing curriculum and for thinking about ways to build synergy between scientists and journalists.

Ryan: This preprint made me think of how scientists interact with journalists as this is something I haven’t really considered before. It was really interesting to see how journalists perceived preprints, especially in the context of the COVID pandemic, and their perspectives on current ‘hot-topics’ in the scientific publishing world such as open access/open science. This preprint really highlights the need for a more open dialogue between journalists and scientists.

Benjamin: I believe scientists still aren’t engaging enough with the general public, who are their ultimate funding source through taxpayer money. Journalists are an important stakeholder to bridge this gap and I really enjoyed reading about their perspective/perception.

Reinier (preLights Community Manager): While reading this preprint, I was reminded of the importance of collaborations between journalists and scientists; and the ways in which they influence one another. I like to think that preLights, advocating for open science and preprints, may help bridge the divide between journalists and scientists by providing a platform where they could meet and discuss the latest (biological) research.

Some questions for the authors

(hopefully these and more will be discussed as part of spotLights)

• Discussions about scientific output and misconduct largely occur on decentralized platforms like online blogs, Twitter/X and PubPeer; while traditional newspaper readership declines. Additionally, most bigger institutions now have public engagement departments that share general audience articles on social media. How has this shifted the relationship between science and journalism?
• With the release of AI, one benefit to scientific journalists could be in the interpretation of scientific literature. However, in contrast AI may not always give correct responses. Do you think that AI will help or hinder the work of scientific journalists?
• Can you speculate how the perception of scientific journalists with and without scientific education differs and should there be more exchange programmes between scientists and journalists (e.g. AAAS Mass Media Science & Engineering Fellowship)?
• What strategies do you think could help journalists move beyond the reliance on citation metrics and prestige markers (e.g. impact factor) when assessing the quality of research? Can scientists help journalists in this regard?
• Based on your findings, what practical recommendations would you offer to science journalists looking to improve the accuracy and independence of their reporting on research? And what role can scientists – like us at preLights – play in this regard?

Tags: communication, open science, science journalism

(No Ratings Yet)