ArticleQuality & quantity2022
Should I trust or should I go? How people perceive and assess the quality of science communication to avoid fake news.
Article in Quality & quantity, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper investigates how citizens of five European countries (Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, and Spain) enquire about scientific issues, how they rate scientific information on climate change and vaccines in terms of quantity and quality, and their strategies for overcoming perceived defects. We conducted a public consultation involving almost 500 citizens and addressed controversial science-related topics. Discussions were qualitatively content analyzed. The public consultations revealed the prevalence of traditional media as a source of scientific information, and the results presented a general perception of inadequate, imprecise, and insufficient scientific communication. Finally, we show how traditional media are still the most frequently used channels and that personal criteria prevail in the evaluation of the reliability of information sources. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11135-022-01569-5.
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.