Frequency distribution of journalistic attention for scientific studies and scientific sources: An input–output analysis

Based on the decision-theoretical conditions underlying the selection of events for news coverage in science journalism, this article uses a novel input-output analysis to investigate which of the more than eight million scientific study results published between August 2014 and July 2018 have been selected by global journalism to a relevant degree. We are interested in two different structures in the media coverage of scientific results. Firstly, the structure of sources that journalists use, i.e. scientific journals, and secondly, the congruence of the journalistic selection of single results. Previous research suggests that the selection of sources and results follows a certain heavy-tailed distribution, a power law. Mathematically, this distribution can be described with a function of the form C*x-α. We argue that the exponent of such power law distributions can potentially be an indicator to describe selectivity in journalism on a high aggregation level. In our input-output analysis, we look for such patterns in the coverage of all scientific results published in the database Scopus over four years. To get an estimate of the coverage of these results, we use data from the altmetrics provider Altmetric, more precisely their Mainstream-Media-Score (MSM-Score). Based on exploratory analyses, we define papers with a score of 50 or above as Social Impact Papers (SIPs). Over our study period, we identified 5,833 SIPs published in 1,236 journals. For both the distribution of the source selection and the distribution of the selection of single results, an exponentially truncated power law is a better fit than the power law, mostly because we find a steeper decline in the tail of the distributions

Repercussions of media coverage on science? A critical assessment of a popular thesis

The topic of this paper is the relationship between journalism and science. In order to describe a potentially relevant dynamic in this relationship, the German sociologist of science Peter Weingart proposed the term "medialization." It describes phenomena of change within science, such as the oversimplification or exaggeration of research findings, which are associated with an increased need for public attention within science. This concept focuses on the repercussions of journalism on science. Inscribed in the term is the assumption that journalism potentially has great social significance. At the very least, journalism, or the mass media it dominates, is thought to influence processes of change within science. The paper aims to assess the social impact of science reporting in order to plausibilize the significance of the role played by journalism. This is based on recent, partly unpublished empirical findings by a German-French DFG/ANR project, which relate to the ability of journalism to focus public attention on scientific events and actors. The results are essentially negative, in the sense that journalism hardly, or at best only very sporadically, succeeds in focusing public attention on individual scientific events or actors. Based on the journalism’s very limited performance in this regard, we consider it implausible that journalism could be as significant a factor as the concept of medialization indicates

Female expertise in public discourses. Visibility of female compared to male scientific experts in German media coverage of eight science related issues

A fair (public) representation of women is one of the most discussed questions of our time. The way in which media coverage (re)produces genders may affect individual and collective thinking and the assessment and perceptions of women in society. We analyse the representation of female scientists in German news media coverage about eight science-related risk issues and compare male and female experts regarding their relative scientific reputation, the number of references and the content of their statements. Our findings show that female scientific experts play a subordinate role in German media coverage and that they are underrepresented compared to the respective proportions in the relevant research areas. At the same time, our data relativize the extent of the gender visibility gap, as the differences – after controlling for hierarchical position and scientific reputation – become rather small. Further, we find no evidence of discrimination against female scientific experts through journalistic selection routines

Kongruenz der Anlassauswahl als Indikator für die Journalismusforschung: Eine Exploration

Mit einer Inhaltsanalyse untersucht der Beitrag ressortvergleichend: 1. wie häufig dieselben nachrichtlichen Anlässe von mehreren Medientiteln zur Berichterstattung ausgewählt werden und 2. ob diesen (in-)kongruenten Auswahlentscheidungen eine Gesetzmäßigkeit zugrunde liegt. Das Interesse gilt dabei besonders der Kongruenz der Nachrichtenauswahl in Wissenschaftsressorts. Argumentiert wird, dass die Verteilung der Auswahlkongruenz Rückschlüsse auf ressortspezifisch unterschiedliche Bedingungen der Nachrichtengebung erlaubt. Diese wirken sich auf die Leistungsfähigkeit des Journalismus aus, die öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit auf besonders relevante Ereignisse zu lenken. Analysiert wurden gut 4000 Artikel, die 2018 und 2019 in einem Zeitraum von einer bzw. zwei Wochen in fünf deutschsprachigen Zeitungen erschienen sind und 2521 verschiedene Anlässe hatten. Der Anteil der Anlässe, die kongruent von mehreren Zeitungen zugleich ausgewählt wurden, nimmt mit dem Grad der Kongruenz exponentiell ab, was frühere Ergebnisse bestätigt. Im Vergleich der verschiedenen Ressorts ist der Anteil exklusiver Anlässe im Wissenschaftsressort deutlich höher. Wissenschaftsredaktionen wählen wesentlich inkongruenter aus als beispielsweise Politikredaktionen. Diese Ergebnisse wecken Zweifel daran, ob es speziell dem Wissenschaftsjournalismus gelingt, das öffentliche Interesse an einem Kernbestand von wichtigen Ereignissen zu befördern

The four weeks before lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: A weekly serial cross-sectional survey on risk perceptions, knowledge, public trust and behaviour, 3 to 25 March 2020

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, public perceptions and behaviours have had to adapt rapidly to new risk scenarios and radical behavioural restrictions. Aim: To identify major drivers of acceptance of protective behaviours during the 4-week transition from virtually no COVID-19 cases to the nationwide lockdown in Germany (3–25 March 2020). Methods: A serial cross-sectional online survey was administered weekly to ca 1,000 unique individuals for four data collection rounds in March 2020 using non-probability quota samples, representative of the German adult population between 18 and 74 years in terms of age × sex and federal state (n = 3,910). Acceptance of restrictions was regressed on sociodemographic variables, time and psychological variables, e.g. trust, risk perceptions, self-efficacy. Extraction of homogenous clusters was based on knowledge and behaviour. Results: Acceptance of restrictive policies increased with participants’ age and employment in the healthcare sector; cognitive and particularly affective risk perceptions were further significant predictors. Acceptance increased over time, as trust in institutions became more relevant and trust in media became less relevant. The cluster analysis further indicated that having a higher education increased the gap between knowledge and behaviour. Trust in institutions was related to conversion of knowledge into action. Conclusion: Identifying relevant principles that increase acceptance will remain crucial to the development of strategies that help adjust behaviour to control the pandemic, possibly for years to come. Based on our findings, we provide operational recommendations for health authorities regarding data collection, health communication and outreach

Supplemental materials for papers

Supplement materials for the papers "Frequency distribution of journalistic attention for scientific studies and scientific sources: An input – output analysis" and "Patterns in the journalistic selection of neuroscientific research results

Frequency distribution of journalistic attention for scientific studies and scientific sources: An input-output analysis.

Based on the decision-theoretical conditions underlying the selection of events for news coverage in science journalism, this article uses a novel input-output analysis to investigate which of the more than eight million scientific study results published between August 2014 and July 2018 have been selected by global journalism to a relevant degree. We are interested in two different structures in the media coverage of scientific results. Firstly, the structure of sources that journalists use, i.e. scientific journals, and secondly, the congruence of the journalistic selection of single results. Previous research suggests that the selection of sources and results follows a certain heavy-tailed distribution, a power law. Mathematically, this distribution can be described with a function of the form C*x-α. We argue that the exponent of such power law distributions can potentially be an indicator to describe selectivity in journalism on a high aggregation level. In our input-output analysis, we look for such patterns in the coverage of all scientific results published in the database Scopus over four years. To get an estimate of the coverage of these results, we use data from the altmetrics provider Altmetric, more precisely their Mainstream-Media-Score (MSM-Score). Based on exploratory analyses, we define papers with a score of 50 or above as Social Impact Papers (SIPs). Over our study period, we identified 5,833 SIPs published in 1,236 journals. For both the distribution of the source selection and the distribution of the selection of single results, an exponentially truncated power law is a better fit than the power law, mostly because we find a steeper decline in the tail of the distributions