ArticlePublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2019
The credibility of scientific communication sources regarding climate change: A population-based survey experiment.
Article in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- When the messenger is more important than the message: an experimental study of evidence use in francophone Africa.Health research policy and systems · 2022Trial
- Social and experiential factors linked to concern about climate-related health harm in the United States.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- In science we trust? Public trust in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections and accepting anthropogenic climate change.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2023Article
- Should I trust or should I go? How people perceive and assess the quality of science communication to avoid fake news.Quality & quantity · 2022Article
- Do We Have aScience & education · 2022Article
- Trust and Mistrust in Sources of Scientific Information on Climate Change and Vaccines: Insights from Portugal and Poland.Science & education · 2022Article
- Citizen journalism reduces the credibility deficit of authoritarian government in risk communication amid COVID-19 outbreaks.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article analyses whether different institutional sources of scientific information have an impact on its credibility. Through a population-based survey experiment of a national representative sample of the Spanish public, we measure the credibility that citizens attribute to scientific information on the evolution of CO
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.