Preprint: “From Impact Metrics and Open Science to Communicating Research: Journalists’ Awareness of Academic Controversies”

The preprint linked below was rencetly shared on biRxiv.

Title

From Impact Metrics And Open Science To Communicating Research: Journalists’ Awareness of Academic Controversies

Authors

Alice Fleerackers
University of British Columbia
Simon Fraser University

Laura L. Moorhead
San Francisco State University

Juan Pablo Alperin
Simon Fraser University

Michelle Riedlinger
Queensland University of Technology

Source

via bioRxiv

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.

Direct to Full Text (preprint)
27 pages; PDF.

Filed under: Interviews, News, Open Access