Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40022294›Full record

ArticlePublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2025

Endorsement of scientific norms among non-scientists: The role of science news consumption, political ideology, and science field.

Markus Schug, Helena Bilandzic, Susanne Kinnebrock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Markus SchugUniversity of Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-0646-1410
Helena BilandzicUniversity of Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9694-9653
Susanne KinnebrockUniversity of Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9723-1387

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Public discussions of controversial science fields like COVID-19 or climate science increasingly address inner-scientific structures and the norms guiding the scientific system-aspects that are normally discussed within the scientific community. However, not much is known about the endorsement of scientific norms by non-scientists and how those endorsements differ between controversial und uncontroversial science fields. We conducted a cross-sectional national survey in Germany (

Indexed as

Mass MediaPoliticsPublic OpinionScienceAdultCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairescontroversial sciencepolitical ideologyscience newsscientific norms

Identifiers

PMID40022294
PMCPMC12274562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.