ArticlePloS one2018
The effect of ad hominem attacks on the evaluation of claims promoted by scientists.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2019Pooled it
- The effects of social media criticism against public health institutions on trust, emotions, and social media engagement.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Discrediting health disinformation sources: Advantages of highlighting low expertise.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2024Article
- Don't believe them! Reducing misinformation influence through source discreditation.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Are we bad winners? Public understandings of the United Nations' World Happiness Report among Finnish digital media and their readers.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2023Article
- Constructive and obsessive criticism in science.European journal of clinical investigation · 2022Article
- Citation impact and social media visibility of Great Barrington and John Snow signatories for COVID-19 strategy.BMJ open · 2022Article
- The Contrasting Evidence Concerning the Effect of Male Circumcision on Sexual Function, Sensation, and Pleasure: A Systematic Review.Sexual medicine · 2020Review
- Attacking science on social media: How user comments affect perceived trustworthiness and credibility.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to determine the relative impact of direct and indirect (ad hominem) attacks on science claims. Four hundred and thirty-nine college students (Experiment 1) and 199 adults (Experiment 2) read a series of science claims and indicated their attitudes towards those claims. Each claim was paired with one of the following: A) a direct attack upon the empirical basis of the science claim B) an ad hominem attack on the scientist who made the claim or C) both. Results indicate that ad hominem attacks may have the same degree of impact as attacks on the empirical basis of the science claims, and that allegations of conflict of interest may be just as influential as allegations of outright fraud.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.