Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42022216›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2026

Improving science literacy in the newsroom: Experimental evidence.

Lara Marie Berger, Anna Kerkhof, Nikola Noske

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Review
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.

Lara Marie BergerDepartment of Economics, University of Cologne, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, 50923 Cologne, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0246-2255
Anna Kerkhofifo Institut - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung an der Universität München e.V., Poschingerstr. 5, 81679 Munich, Germany.
Nikola Noskeifo Institut - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung an der Universität München e.V., Poschingerstr. 5, 81679 Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate reporting of new findings is essential for an informed public, yet limited science literacy among journalists often results in misinterpretation of research, with costly societal and economic consequences. We developed a concise educational video that aimed to enhance journalists' science literacy through explaining important checkpoints for sound research reporting (funding, sample, statistics, causal claims, and visuals). The impact of this video was tested in a survey experiment with 260 German journalists. Treated participants produced correct headlines for 64% of study-based news stories versus 36% in the control group (a 28-percentage-point rise,

Indexed as

journalismmisinformationscience literacysurvey experiment

Identifiers

PMID42022216
PMCPMC13097122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.