From impact metrics and open science to communicating research: Journalists’ awareness of academic controversies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study sheds light on how journalists respond to evolving debates within academia around topics including research integrity, improper use of metrics to measure research quality and impact, and the risks and benefits of the open science movement. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 19 health and science journalists, we describe journalists’ awareness of these controversies and the ways in which that awareness, in turn, shapes the practices they use to select, verify, and communicate research. Our findings suggest that journalists’ perceptions of debates in scholarly communication vary widely, with some displaying a highly critical and nuanced understanding and others presenting a more limited awareness. Those with a more in-depth understanding report closely scrutinizing the research they report, carefully vetting the study design, methodology, and analyses. Those with a more limited awareness are more trusting of the peer review system as a quality control system and more willing to rely on researchers when determining what research to report on and how to vet and frame it. We discuss the benefits and risks of these varied perceptions and practices, highlighting the implications for the nature of the research media coverage that reaches the public.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.241 | 0.474 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".