ArticleBioscience2024
Scientific telephone: The cautionary tale of the global coverage of lichens.
Article in Bioscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The global extent of the grassland biome and implications for the terrestrial carbon sink.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
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
Scientific history has many examples of profound statements that are later found to be unsubstantiated. The consequences of such misinformation can be dire. In the present article, we present a case where an unevidenced estimate of global lichen coverage proliferated through both scientific literature and popular media. We traced this estimate to a non-peer-reviewed publication from 1987. We found 76 academic articles (collectively cited 4125 times) and 13 other academic documents citing the statistic, citation chains without source attribution, and instances where the number or context was changed. We also found the statistic 37 times in popular media, which is especially concerning, given that these media communicate science to the broader public. We demonstrate how an unevidenced statement can spread, change through time, and ultimately be repeated without demand for evidence. We hope this case unplugs the telephone and provides a cautionary tale for researchers to ensure critical evaluation of citation and communication practices.
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.