ArticleRoyal Society open science2019
Science podcasts: analysis of global production and output from 2004 to 2018.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Time to listen: harnessing podcasts for stakeholder engagement in circadian and sleep science.Npj biological timing and sleep · 2026Article
- Maximizing the Impact of Your Academic Scholarship: Strategies for Early Career Professionals.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026Review
- Implementation and User Evaluation of the SANGYAN Digital Health Platform to Enhance Knowledge About COVID-19 and Other Health Conditions: Quasi-Experimental Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2026Article
- Students as science communicators: using podcast creation and reflection via collaborative autoethnography to develop students' science communication skills.Journal of microbiology & biology education · 2026Article
- Applying Constructive Alignment to Enhance the Educational Structure of the European Society for Vascular Surgery Podcasts.EJVES vascular forum · 2026Article
- Power to the People: Measuring Social Media and Mass Media Impact for Promotion and Tenure in Social and Applied Sciences.Higher education policy · 2025Article
- Digital Health Intervention (SANGYAN Podcast) to Enhance Knowledge Related to COVID-19 and Other Health Conditions: Protocol for an Implementation and Evaluation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Analysis of over 1600 chemistry YouTube channels from 2005 to 2023.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Nine quick tips for open meta-analyses.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Considerations for establishing and maintaining international research collaboration: the example of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN)-a white paper.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Review
- Use of podcasts for health education: a scoping review.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2024Article
- The power of podcasts: Exploring the endless possibilities of audio education and information in medicine, healthcare epidemiology, and antimicrobial stewardship.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2023Article
- Broadening the impact of plant science through innovative, integrative, and inclusive outreach.Plant direct · 2021Article
- Five Medical Education Podcasts You Need to Know.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2020Review
- Giving radiologists a voice: a review of podcasts in radiology.Insights into imaging · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since 2004, podcasts have emerged as a decentralized medium for science communication to the global public. However, to date, there have been no large-scale quantitative studies of the production and dissemination of science podcasts. This study identified 952 English language science podcasts available between January and February 2018 and analysed online textual and visual data related to the podcasts and classified and noted key production parameters. It was found that the total number of science podcast series available grew linearly between 2004 and 2010, and then exponentially between 2010 and 2018. Sixty-five per cent of science podcast series were hosted by scientists and 77% were targeted to public audiences. Although a wide range of primarily single-subject science podcasts series were noted, 34% of science podcast series were not dedicated to a science subject. Compared to biology and physics, chemistry may be under-represented by science podcasts. Only 24% of science podcast series had any overt financial income. Sixty-two per cent of science podcast series were affiliated to an organization; producing a greater number of episodes (median = 24, average = 96) than independent science podcast series (median = 16, average = 48). This study provides the first 'snapshot' of how science podcasts are being used to communicate science to public audiences around the globe.
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.