Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25117741›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Media reporting of neuroscience depends on timing, topic and newspaper type.

Nienke M van Atteveldt, Sandra I van Aalderen-Smeets, Carina Jacobi, Nel Ruigrok

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Responsible Research and Innovation as a Novel Approach to Guide Educational Impact of Mind, Brain, and Education Research.Mind, brain and education : the official journal of the International Mind, Brain, and Education Society · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Nienke M van AtteveldtDepartment of Educational Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology and Education and Institute Learn!, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Cognitive Neuroscience, Faculty of Psychology & Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Sandra I van Aalderen-SmeetsCentre for Science Education and Talent Development (SETD), Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Carina JacobiDepartment of Media & Communication, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Communication, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Nel RuigrokDepartment of Media & Communication, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLMaastricht University · NLUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid developments in neuroscientific techniques raise high expectations among the general public and therefore warrant close monitoring of the translation to the media and daily-life applications. The need of empirical research into neuroscience communication is emphasized by its susceptibility to evoke misconceptions and polarized beliefs. As the mass media are the main sources of information about (neuro-)science for a majority of the general public, the objective of the current research is to quantify how critically and accurately newspapers report on neuroscience as a function of the timing of publication (within or outside of periods of heightened media attention to neuroscience, termed "news waves"), the topic of the research (e.g. development, health, law) and the newspaper type (quality, popular, free newspapers). The results show that articles published during neuroscience news waves were less neutral and more optimistic, but not different in accuracy. Furthermore, the overall tone and accuracy of articles depended on the topic; for example, articles on development often had an optimistic tone whereas articles on law were often skeptical or balanced, and articles on health care had highest accuracy. Average accuracy was rather low, but articles in quality newspapers were relatively more accurate than in popular and free newspapers. Our results provide specific recommendations for researchers and science communicators, to improve the translation of neuroscience findings through the media: 1) Caution is warranted during periods of heightened attention (news waves), as reporting tends to be more optimistic; 2) Caution is also warranted not to follow topic-related biases in optimism (e.g., development) or skepticism (e.g., law); 3) Researchers should keep in mind that overall accuracy of reporting is low, and especially articles in popular and free newspapers provide a minimal amount of details. This indicates that researchers themselves may need to be more active in preventing misconceptions to arise.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCommunicationNeurosciencesNewspapers as TopicHumansMass Media

Identifiers

PMID25117741
PMCPMC4130600
OpenAlexW2047293332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.