Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40587793›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025

An agenda for science communication research and practice.

James N Druckman, Kirsten M Ellenbogen, Dietram A Scheufele, Itzhak Yanovitzky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

4 authors.

James N DruckmanDepartment of Political Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627.ORCID 0000-0002-1249-6790
Kirsten M EllenbogenGreat Lakes Science Center, Cleveland, OH 44114.ORCID 0009-0001-0763-540X
Dietram A ScheufeleMorgridge Institute for Research, Madison, WI 53715.ORCID 0000-0002-9914-5407
Itzhak YanovitzkySchool of Communication and Information, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901.ORCID 0000-0001-6366-8006

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Science should not unilaterally dictate individuals' decisions or public policies. Yet, it provides a vital source of information for societies and individuals that can often improve outcomes and well-being. This requires, however, the effective communication of scientific information. We identify two paradigms for science communication. One focuses on dissemination, often seeking to inform, reframe, or correct beliefs. Another emphasizes participation and engagement with the goal of improving public understanding of science and scientists' understanding of the public's concerns, needs, and values. We argue that participatory approaches better address contemporary challenges concerning scientific uncertainty, politicized science, artificial value neutrality, and a reactive science communication infrastructure. These approaches though need to move away from transactional partnerships toward more cocreation and coproduction of knowledge. They also need to focus more on less motivated and/or engaged populations. Investment in a participatory infrastructure is crucial given that even the most path-breaking science only matters if it can be adequately communicated to relevant stakeholders.

Indexed as

CommunicationInformation DisseminationResearchScienceHumansdisseminationhealth communicationparticipatory researchscience communicationscientific literacy

Identifiers

PMID40587793
PMCPMC12260439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.