Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37944324›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in psychology2023

Misinformation and the epistemic integrity of democracy.

Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich K H Ecker, John Cook, Sander van der Linden, Jon Roozenbeek, Naomi Oreskes

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in psychology, 2023. 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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Capturing Argument in Agent-Based Models.Topoi : an international review of philosophy · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. The Brain Economy: Advancing Brain Science to Better Understand the Modern Economy.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Stephan LewandowskyUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, UK; University of Potsdam, Germany; University of Western Australia, Australia. Electronic address: stephan.lewandowsky@bristol.ac.uk.
Ullrich K H EckerUniversity of Western Australia, Australia.
John CookUniversity of Melbourne, Australia.
Sander van der LindenUniversity of Cambridge, UK.
Jon RoozenbeekUniversity of Cambridge, UK.
Naomi OreskesHarvard University, USA.

Funding

European Research Council 101020961
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Democracy relies on a shared body of knowledge among citizens, for example trust in elections and reliable knowledge to inform policy-relevant debate. We review the evidence for widespread disinformation campaigns that are undermining this shared knowledge. We establish a common pattern by which science and scientists are discredited and how the most recent frontier in those attacks involves researchers in misinformation itself. We list several ways in which psychology can contribute to countermeasures.

Indexed as

CommunicationDemocracyHumansPoliticsAttacks on scientistsClimate scienceIntegrity of democracyMisinformation

Identifiers

PMID37944324
PMCPMC7615327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.