ArticleBehavior genetics2025
A Qualitative Study of the Roles and Responsibilities of Academic and Journalistic Publishing in Social and Behavioral Genomics.
Article in Behavior genetics, 2025. 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.
- Behavioral Genetics as a Public Science: Introduction to the Special Issue.Behavior genetics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The conduct and translation of scientific research is shaped by academic and journalistic publishing. Academic journals issue editorial guidelines and policies that inform how researchers shape and present their studies. Journalists select and report on academic studies for public audiences. Despite the potential importance of journal editors and journalists in the scientific process, little has been done to examine how these groups think about their roles and responsibilities-especially when it comes to ethically sensitive scientific domains like social and behavioral genomics (SBG): the study of whether and how genetic differences between individuals correlate with differences in behaviors such as aggression and outcomes such as educational attainment. To begin filling this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with editors working at academic journals that publish SBG research (n = 10) and journalists who have reported on SBG studies (n = 13). Journal editors largely saw themselves as mediators between authors and peer reviewers who help to shepherd along research. Journalists frequently described themselves as translators of science for wide audiences; at times they also saw themselves as interrogators of science. While both groups considered SBG especially ethically sensitive and prone to risks such as misinterpretation, many expressed that systematic ethical review processes and guidelines for SBG are lacking. Further, many deferred the ethical responsibility to minimize risks associated with SBG to others. Our findings highlight the need for more explicit frameworks in academic and journalistic publishing to support the ethically responsible conduct and communication of SBG.
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.