ArticleScientific reports2025
The media morphosis of science communication during crises.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective science communication is crucial in informing citizens in times of crisis. The ICT-driven metamorphosis of the media industry (media-morphosis) has facilitated the shift from a rather one-directional information deficit model in science communication to a more bidirectional communication corresponding to a dialogue model. Little is known about the preferences for social media communication from the supply side of institutional and scholarly communication. Analyzing survey data from nearly 8,700 scientists, we compared their preferences for press media and social media, proxies of traditional centralized communication channels and modern decentralized channels, respectively. Our empirical results show that trust in governments and prioritizing access to all perspectives on the crisis are important factors that influence scientists' preferences regarding forms of communication. Trust favors centralized systems, while social media serves as an alternative in contexts lacking trust in politics. Prioritizing the diffusion of different perspectives drives a shift to stated preferences for decentralized communication systems. We also show that scientists' stated preferences for communication systems depend on the socio-political context.
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.