ReviewProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2021
Misinformation in and about science.
Review in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021. 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 59 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
59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of Levetiracetam in Patients With Pediatric Epilepsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Bakteriopolis: Introducing Microbes to Society.Microbial biotechnology · 2026Review
- The art of sharing: From research to outreach in the social media era.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Oral examination as a tool for mastery learning in undergraduate microbiology.FEMS microbiology letters · 2026Article
- Review
- Health disparities in neurology.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2025Review
- Explaining Twitter's inability to effectively moderate content during the COVID-19 pandemic.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Political expression of academics on Twitter.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Applications and Assessment of Social Media in Pediatric Orthopedics: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Our changing information ecosystem for science and why it matters for effective science communication.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- The gender gap in scholarly self-promotion on social media.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Review
- Improving the reports of systematic reviews in sexual medicine.The journal of sexual medicine · 2025Article
- Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- The inaccurate citation of the "Universal Declaration of Animal Rights" (UDAR) in the scientific literature: a scoping review.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- Communicating with society about the science behind meat and livestock production.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2025Article
- Perspective: the role of science in society.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2025Review
- Perceptions of science, science communication, and climate change attitudes in 68 countries - the TISP dataset.Scientific data · 2025Article
- A novel framework for increasing research transparency: Exploring the connection between diversity and innovation.PloS one · 2025Article
- Descriptive analysis of TikTok content on vaccination in Arabic.AIMS public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans learn about the world by collectively acquiring information, filtering it, and sharing what we know. Misinformation undermines this process. The repercussions are extensive. Without reliable and accurate sources of information, we cannot hope to halt climate change, make reasoned democratic decisions, or control a global pandemic. Most analyses of misinformation focus on popular and social media, but the scientific enterprise faces a parallel set of problems-from hype and hyperbole to publication bias and citation misdirection, predatory publishing, and filter bubbles. In this perspective, we highlight these parallels and discuss future research directions and interventions.
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.