ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Our changing information ecosystem for science and why it matters for effective science communication.
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 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- How the unvaccinated have been portrayed in the urban English-language Canadian popular press since the declared end of the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Authors' academic but not personal expertise or gender affect message credibility in science communication.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Quality of Evidence of and Engagement With Video Medical Claims.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Addressing social media platforms' influence on academic research.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2026Article
- Impacts of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Misinformation in Digital Spaces on Human Rights Protection and Promotion: Scoping Review.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Reply to González-Bailón and Lazer: Industry control and conflicts of interest in social media research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Scientific standards suffer from misrepresenting past work.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- An agenda for science communication research and practice.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
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
Current information ecologies present unique opportunities to communicate science and engage diverse publics in science. Unfortunately, they also present unique challenges. Here, we outline how the public sphere for science is transforming as media evolve, and we connect these changes to the high-stakes issue context of COVID-19. We argue that scientific organizations' struggles to adapt to evolving media are linked, in part, to asymmetries in which social media platforms prevent researchers from producing reliable data that could inform institutional change and improve science communication. This has been apparent in studies of echo chambers and filter bubbles. Producing a more usable evidence base, we conclude, will require that scholars a) obtain access to proprietary data, b) reconceptualize information ecologies as social systems, c) avoid ceding core research tasks to platforms, d) address ethical issues, and e) grapple with the urgency of moving forward productively.
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.