Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32639974›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility?

Marta Entradas, Martin W Bauer, Colm O'Muircheartaigh, Frank Marcinkowski, Asako Okamura, Giuseppe Pellegrini, John Besley, Luisa Massarani, Pedro Russo, Anthony Dudo and 8 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Scientists' Experiences With Getting Help Making Strategic Communication Choices.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026
    Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Marta EntradasInstituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7146-9912
Martin W BauerDepartment of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, England, United Kingdom.
Colm O'MuircheartaighUniversity of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Frank MarcinkowskiDepartment of Social Sciences, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Asako OkamuraNational Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Tokyo, Japan.
Giuseppe PellegriniObserva Science & Society, Vicenza, Italy.
John BesleyDepartment of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.
Luisa MassaraniFundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Casa de Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto Nacional de Comunicação Publica da Ciência e Tecnologia, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Pedro RussoDepartment of Science Communication & Society, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8589-7800
Anthony DudoStan Richards School of Advertising and Public Relations, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
Barbara SaracinoDepartment of Sociology, Università di Trento, Trento, Italy.
Carla SilvaFundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Casa de Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto Nacional de Comunicação Publica da Ciência e Tecnologia, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Kei KanoFaculty of Education, Shiga University, Otsu Shiga, Japan.
Luis AmorimFundação Oswaldo Cruz, FIOCRUZ, Casa de Oswaldo Cruz, Instituto Nacional de Comunicação Publica da Ciência e Tecnologia, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Massimiano BucchiDepartment of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Ahmet SuerdemBilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Tatsuo OyamaDepartment of Social Sciences, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Yuh-Yuh LiNational Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leading academic institutions, governments, and funders of research across the world have spent the last few decades fretting publicly about the need for scientists and research organisations to engage more widely with the public and be open about their research. While a global literature asserts that public communication has changed from a virtue to a duty for scientists in many countries and disciplines, our knowledge about what research institutions are doing and what factors drive their 'going public' is very limited. Here we present the first cross-national study of N = 2,030 research institutes within universities and large scientific organisations in Brazil, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. We find that institutes embrace communication with non-peers and do so through a variety of public events and traditional news media-less so through new media channels-and we find variation across countries and sciences, yet these are less evident than we expected. Country and disciplinary cultures contribute to the level of this communication, as do the resources that institutes make available for the effort; institutes with professionalised staff show higher activity online. Future research should examine whether a real change in the organisational culture is happening or whether this activity and resource allocation is merely a means to increase institutional visibility.

Indexed as

Academies and InstitutesInformation DisseminationBrazilCapacity BuildingCommunicationEuropeHumansJapanResearchUnited KingdomUnited States

Identifiers

PMID32639974
PMCPMC7343166

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.