ArticlePublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2023
Exploring 'quality' in science communication online: Expert thoughts on how to assess and promote science communication quality in digital media contexts.
Article in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers to science communication about research involving animal experimentation: A systematic literature review.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2026Pooled it
- How the unvaccinated have been portrayed in the urban English-language Canadian popular press since the declared end of the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- The mutualistic symbiosis of public and scientific attention in science communication.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- What are we talking about when we are talking about the audience? Exploring the concept of audience in science communication research and education.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2025Article
- Assessing Motivations and Channels for Nutritional Information Verification in Spanish University Communities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Unlocking the potential of social media on food additives for effective science communication.NPJ science of food · 2024Article
- Does knowledge make a difference? Understanding how the lay public and experts assess the credibility of information on novel foods.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Article
- Editorial Message.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2024Article
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
In recent years, the public visibility of science has greatly increased. In the digital media landscape, a wide range of players is now engaged in science communication via various online channels. While these developments offer opportunities, they also entail risks for the quality of science communication. This study explores how the quality of science communication can be assessed and promoted in the increasingly complex digital ecosystem. A two-wave survey with international science communication experts served as a basis to develop a quality framework for digital science communication and to formulate strategies to promote the quality of science communication online. Besides these outcomes, results hint at blind spots in the discourse of science communication quality that demand further investigation and reflection.
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.