ArticlePloS one2023
Public perception of scientists: Experimental evidence on the role of sociodemographic, partisan, and professional characteristics.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding public confidence in locally-produced mRNA vaccines: Insights for future pandemic preparedness.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Application of Citizen Science to Sheep as a Model to Sensitize Young Citizens to Biodiversity, Animal Welfare and the Social Utility of Research.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Article
- 'Follow the science': Popular trust in scientific experts during the coronavirus pandemic.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2025Article
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
Previous research shows that public trust in scientists is often bound up with the messages that they convey and the context in which they communicate. However, in the current study, we examine how the public perceives scientists based on the characteristics of scientists themselves, irrespective of their scientific message and its context. Using a quota sample of U.S. adults, we investigate how scientists' sociodemographic; partisan; and professional characteristics affect preferences and trust towards them as a scientific adviser to local government. We find that scientists' party identification and professional characteristics appear to be prominent to understand public preferences towards them.
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.