Communicating Scientific Uncertainty in an Age of COVID-19: An Investigation into the Use of Preprints by Digital Media Outlets

Differential effects of digital media platforms on climate change risk information-sharing intention: A moderated mediation model

This study analyzes the mechanisms through which risk messages about climate change lead to people's risk information-sharing intention, and how digital media platform type serves as a context that moderates those mechanisms. Our analysis is informed by the influence of presumed influence (IPI) model, and we adapt and expand that model in three ways. First, we apply the concept of perceived media reach to the context of digital media platforms, specifically news aggregators and social networking sites. Second, we integrate the two mediators of risk perception and presumed influence. Third, we examine potential moderating roles of digital media platforms in the IPI model. An online survey was conducted among 1000 South Korean adults, and a moderated mediation model (PROCESS Macro Model 59) generated the following results. (1) Perceived media reach was positively related to both mediators-risk perception and presumed influence. (2) By way of those two mediators, perceived reach significantly led to information-sharing intention. (3) Presumed influence, but not risk perception, was significantly related to information-sharing intention. (4) Digital media platforms moderated the relation between perceived reach and risk perception: the role of content-related risk perception was more pronounced in news aggregators, while the role of context-related presumed influence was greater in social networking sites. Theoretical and practical implications for risk communication are discussed.

Quality of science journalism in the age of Artificial Intelligence explored with a mixed methodology

Science journalists, traditionally, play a key role in delivering science information to a wider audience. However, changes in the media ecosystem and the science-media relationship are posing challenges to reliable news production. Additionally, recent developments such as ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence (AI) more generally, may have further consequences for the work of (science) journalists. Through a mixed-methodology, the quality of news reporting was studied within the context of AI. A content analysis of media output about AI (news articles published within the time frame 1 September 2022-28 February 2023) explored the adherence to quality indicators, while interviews shed light on journalism practices regarding quality reporting on and with AI. Perspectives from understudied areas in four European countries (Belgium, Italy, Portugal, and Spain) were included and compared. The findings show that AI received continuous media attention in the four countries. Furthermore, despite four different media landscapes, the reporting in the news articles adhered to the same quality criteria such as applying rigour, including sources of information, accessibility, and relevance. Thematic analysis of the interview findings revealed that impact of AI and ChatGPT on the journalism profession is still in its infancy. Expected benefits of AI related to helping with repetitive tasks (e.g. translations), and positively influencing journalistic principles of accessibility, engagement, and impact, while concerns showed fear for lower adherence to principles of rigour, integrity and transparency of sources of information. More generally, the interviewees expressed concerns about the state of science journalism, including a lack of funding influencing the quality of reporting. Journalists who were employed as staff as well as those who worked as freelancers put efforts in ensuring quality output, for example, via editorial oversight, discussions, or memberships of associations. Further research into the science-media relationship is recommended.

Using an expert survey and user feedback to construct PRECHECK: A checklist to evaluate preprints on COVID-19 and beyond

Background

The quality of COVID-19 preprints should be considered with great care, as their contents can influence public policy. Surprisingly little has been done to calibrate the public's evaluation of preprints and their contents. The PRECHECK project aimed to generate a tool to teach and guide scientifically literate non-experts to critically evaluate preprints, on COVID-19 and beyond.

Methods

To create a checklist, we applied a four-step procedure consisting of an initial internal review, an external review by a pool of experts (methodologists, meta-researchers/experts on preprints, journal editors, and science journalists), a final internal review, and a Preliminary implementation stage. For the external review step, experts rated the relevance of each element of the checklist on five-point Likert scales, and provided written feedback. After each internal review round, we applied the checklist on a small set of high-quality preprints from an online list of milestone research works on COVID-19 and low-quality preprints, which were eventually retracted, to verify whether the checklist can discriminate between the two categories.

Results

At the external review step, 26 of the 54 contacted experts responded. The final checklist contained four elements (Research question, study type, transparency and integrity, and limitations), with 'superficial' and 'deep' evaluation levels. When using both levels, the checklist was effective at discriminating a small set of high- and low-quality preprints. Its usability for assessment and discussion of preprints was confirmed in workshops with Bachelors students in Psychology and Medicine, and science journalists.

Conclusions

We created a simple, easy-to-use tool for helping scientifically literate non-experts navigate preprints with a critical mind and facilitate discussions within, for example, a beginner-level lecture on research methods. We believe that our checklist has potential to help guide decisions about the quality of preprints on COVID-19 in our target audience and that this extends beyond COVID-19.

Visible scientists in digital communication environments: An analysis of their role performance as public experts on Twitter/X during the Covid-19 pandemic

In response to significant societal challenges, there is a growing demand for scientists to actively engage in public discussions. The recent Covid-19 pandemic led to the sudden visibility of certain scientists, necessitating them to extend their roles beyond research and actively communicate with the general public. Online platforms allow for direct engagement but increase the challenge by interconnecting different public arenas. Our case study examined the role performance of visible virologists on Twitter/X in six different time periods during the pandemic in Germany (N = 1003). Findings indicate that they often express calls to action, and voice their own views, but seldom address uncertainty. Differences over time were found in their use of different types of statements, scientific jargon and emotional language. They also utilised the opportunities of direct communication, performing roles like watchdogs or advocates, highlighting the importance for scientists to reflect on their roles as communicators.

Framing COVID-19 Preprint Research as Uncertain: A Mixed-Method Study of Public Reactions

During the COVID-19 pandemic, journalists were encouraged to convey uncertainty surrounding preliminary scientific evidence, including mentioning when research is unpublished or unverified by peer review. To understand how public audiences interpret this information, we conducted a mixed method study with U.S. adults. Participants read a news article about preprint COVID-19 vaccine research in early April 2021, just as the vaccine was becoming widely available to the U.S. public. We modified the article to test two ways of conveying uncertainty (hedging of scientific claims and mention of preprint status) in a 2 × 2 between-participants factorial design. To complement this, we collected open-ended data to assess participants' understanding of the concept of a scientific preprint. In all, participants who read hedged (vs. unhedged) versions of the article reported less favorable vaccine attitudes and intentions and found the scientists and news reporting less trustworthy. These effects were moderated by participants' epistemic beliefs and their preference for information about scientific uncertainty. However, there was no impact of describing the study as a preprint, and participants' qualitative responses indicated a limited understanding of the concept. We discuss implications of these findings for communicating initial scientific evidence to the public and we outline important next steps for research and theory-building.

Use of immunology in news and YouTube videos in the context of COVID-19: politicisation and information bubbles

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic propelled immunology into global news and social media, resulting in the potential for misinterpreting and misusing complex scientific concepts.

Objective

To study the extent to which immunology is discussed in news articles and YouTube videos in English and Italian, and if related scientific concepts are used to support specific political or ideological narratives in the context of COVID-19.

Methods

In English and Italian we searched the period 11/09/2019 to 11/09/2022 on YouTube, using the software Mozdeh, for videos mentioning COVID-19 and one of nine immunological concepts: antibody-dependent enhancement, anergy, cytokine storm, herd immunity, hygiene hypothesis, immunity debt, original antigenic sin, oxidative stress and viral interference. We repeated this using MediaCloud for news articles.Four samples of 200 articles/videos were obtained from the randomised data gathered and analysed for mentions of concepts, stance on vaccines, masks, lockdown, social distancing, and political signifiers.

Results

Vaccine-negative information was higher in videos than news (8-fold in English, 6-fold in Italian) and higher in Italian than English (4-fold in news, 3-fold in videos). We also observed the existence of information bubbles, where a negative stance towards one intervention was associated with a negative stance to other linked ideas. Some immunological concepts (immunity debt, viral interference, anergy and original antigenic sin) were associated with anti-vaccine or anti-NPI (non-pharmacological intervention) views. Videos in English mentioned politics more frequently than those in Italian and, in all media and languages, politics was more frequently mentioned in anti-guidelines and anti-vaccine media by a factor of 3 in video and of 3-5 in news.

Conclusion

There is evidence that some immunological concepts are used to provide credibility to specific narratives and ideological views. The existence of information bubbles supports the concept of the "rabbit hole" effect, where interest in unconventional views/media leads to ever more extreme algorithmic recommendations.

Editorial viewpoints of scientific publishing for early-career research scientists

While the structure and composition of the scientific manuscript is well known within scientific communities, insider knowledge such as the tricks of the trade and editorial viewpoints of scientific publishing are often less known to early-career research scientists. This article focuses on the key aspects of scientific publishing, including tips for success geared towards senior postdocs and junior faculty. It also highlights important considerations for getting manuscripts published in an efficient and successful manner.

Making science public: a review of journalists' use of Open Access research

Science journalists are uniquely positioned to increase the societal impact of open research outputs by contextualizing and communicating findings in ways that highlight their relevance and implications for non-specialist audiences. Yet, it is unclear to what degree journalists use open research outputs, such as open access publications or preprints, in their reporting; what factors motivate or constrain this use; and how the recent surge in openly available research seen during the COVID-19 pandemic has affected this. This article examines these questions through a review of relevant literature published from 2018 onwards-particularly literature relating to the COVID-19 pandemic-as well as seminal articles outside the search dates. We find that research that explicitly examines journalists' engagement with open access publications or preprints is scarce, with existing literature mostly addressing the topic tangentially or as a secondary concern, rather than a primary focus. Still, the limited body of evidence points to several factors that may hamper journalists' use of these outputs and thus warrant further exploration. These include an overreliance on traditional criteria for evaluating scientific quality; concerns about the trustworthiness of open research outputs; and challenges using and verifying the findings. We also find that, while the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged journalists to explore open research outputs such as preprints, the extent to which these explorations will become established journalistic practices remains unclear. Furthermore, we note that current research is overwhelmingly authored and focused on the Global North, and the United States specifically. We conclude with recommendations for future research that attend to issues of equity and diversity, and more explicitly examine the intersections of open access and science journalism.

Navigating the asthma network on Twitter: Insights from social network and sentiment analysis

Background

Asthma is a condition in which the airways become inflamed and constricted, causing breathing difficulties, wheezing, coughing, and chest tightness. Social networks can have a substantial effect on asthma management and results. However, no studies of social networks addressing asthma have been undertaken.

Objective

The aim of this research was to identify the significant social network structures, key influencers, top topics, and sentiments of asthma-related Twitter conversations.

Methods

All the tweets collected for this study included the keyword "asthma" or were mentioned in or in replies to tweets that were performed. For this study, a random sample of Twitter data was collected using NodeXL Pro software between December 1, 2022, and January 29, 2023. The data collected includes the user's display name, Twitter handle, tweet text, and the tweet's publishing date and time. After being imported into the Gephi application, the NodeXL data were then shown using the Fruchterman-Reingold layout method. In our study, SNA (Social Network Analysis) metrics were utilized to identify the most popular subject using hashtags, sentiment-related phrases (positive, negative, or neutral), and top influencer by centrality measures (degree, betweenness).

Results

The study collected 48,122 tweets containing the keyword "asthma" or mentioned in replies. News reporters and journalists emerged as top influencers based on centrality measures in Twitter conversations about asthma, followed by government and healthcare institutions. Education, trigger factors (e.g., cat exposure, diet), and associated conditions were highly discussed topics on asthma-related social media posts (e.g., sarscov2, copd). Our study's sentiment analysis revealed that there were 8427 phrases associated neutral comments (18%), 12,582 words reflecting positive viewpoints (26%), and 27,111 words reflecting negative opinions (56%).

Conclusion

This study investigates the relevance of social media influencers, news reporters, health experts, health organizations, and the government in the dissemination and promotion of asthma-related education and awareness during public health information.

The Pulse of Long COVID on Twitter: A Social Network Analysis

BACKGROUND

Long coronavirus disease (COVID) is a complex and multifaceted health condition with a range of severe symptoms that can last for weeks or even months after the acute phase of the illness has passed. Employing social network analysis (SNA) can rapidly provide significant health information to communities related to long COVID. This study aimed to identify the key themes, most influential users, and overall sentiments in the Twitter discourse on long COVID.

METHODS

Data were collected from a Twitter search with the specific keywords "long COVID" from December 1, 2022, to February 22, 2023, using NodeXL Pro. Visualizations, including network graphs and key influencers, were created using Gephi, and sentiment analysis was conducted with Azure Machine.

RESULTS

In total, 119,185 tweets from 94325 users were related to long COVID. Top influencers include medical professionals, researchers, journalists, and public figures, with news media platforms as primary information sources; the most common hashtag was #longCOVID, indicating that it is a significant issue of concern among the Twitter community. In the sentiment analysis, most tweets were negative.

CONCLUSION

The study highlights the importance of critically evaluating information shared by influential users and seeking out multiple sources of information when making health-related decisions. In addition, it emphasizes the value of examining social media conversations to understand public discourse on long COVID and suggests that future researchers could explore the role of social media in shaping public perceptions and behaviors related to health issues. Strategies for enhancing scientific journal engagement and influence in online discussions are discussed as well.

Characterizing the Gendered Twitter Discussion of COVID-19 Hoax

We collected data from Twitter and used content analysis to better understand the gendered discussion around COVID-19 as a hoax. We identified three main categories in the inductive stage of the research: (1) sympathetic to human rights & perceived injustice, (2) invincibility and superiority of COVID hoaxers, (3) conspiracies and/or hidden agendas. The findings of the study show that among all gender groups, the first category is the most dominant (44.4%), the third category is the second most frequent (35.6%), and the last category (19.9%) is the least frequent. However, when the discussion is centered on men (40.2%) and gender and sexual minorities (GSM; 69.6%) groups, the last category is the most dominant with regard to stigmatizing GSM groups by falsely associating them with progressive secret agendas. As for women's group, being sympathetic to human rights and the perceived injustice against them during the pandemic constitute the most dominant category (51.5%). We discuss the implications of the study in the conclusion.

The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that is shared publicly, through a preprint server, before being submitted to a journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The scoping review explored the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017-2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022).

RESULTS

379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities).

CONCLUSIONS

Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.

A comment-driven evidence appraisal approach to promoting research findings into practice when only uncertain evidence is available

BACKGROUND

Comments in PubMed are usually short papers for supporting or refuting claims, or discussing methods and findings in original articles. This study aims to explore whether they can be used as a quick and reliable evidence appraisal instrument for promoting research findings into practice, especially in emergency situations such as COVID-19 in which only missing, incomplete or uncertain evidence is available.

METHODS

Evidence-comment networks (ECNs) were constructed by linking COVID-19-related articles to the commentaries (letters, editorials or brief correspondence) they received. PubTator Central was used to extract entities with a high volume of comments from the titles and abstracts of the articles. Among them, six drugs were selected, and their evidence assertions were analysed by exploring the structural information in the ECNs as well as the sentiment of the comments (positive, negative, neutral). Recommendations in WHO guidelines were used as the gold standard control to validate the consistency, coverage and efficiency of comments in reshaping clinical knowledge claims.

RESULTS

The overall positive/negative sentiments of comments were aligned with recommendations for/against the corresponding treatments in the WHO guidelines. Comment topics covered all significant points of evidence appraisal and beyond. Furthermore, comments may indicate the uncertainty regarding drug use for clinical practice. Half of the critical comments emerged 4.25 months earlier on average than the guideline release.

CONCLUSIONS

Comments have the potential as a support tool for rapid evidence appraisal as they have a selection effect by appraising the benefits, limitations and other clinical practice issues of concern in existing evidence. We suggest as a future direction an appraisal framework based on the comment topics and sentiment orientations to leverage the potential of scientific commentaries supporting evidence appraisal and decision-making.

Changes in health communication in the age of COVID-19: A study on the dissemination of preprints to the public

Introduction

Preprints have become an important tool for meeting the challenges of health communication in the context of COVID-19. They allow scientists to disseminate their results more quickly due to the absence of a peer review process. Preprints have been well-received by scientists, however, there have been concerns about the exposure of wider public audiences to preprints due in part to this lack of peer review.

Methods

The aim of this study is to examine the dissemination of preprints on medRxiv and bioRxiv during the COVID-19 pandemic using content analysis and statistical analysis.

Results

Our findings show that preprints have played an unprecedented role in disseminating COVID-19-related science results to the public.

Discussion

While the overall media coverage of preprints is unsatisfactory, digital native news media performed better than legacy media in reporting preprints, which means that we could make the most of digital native media to improve health communication. This study contributes to understanding how science communication has evolved in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and provides some practical recommendations.

Preprints in Health Professions Education: Raising Awareness and Shifting Culture

A preprint is a version of a research manuscript posted by its authors to a preprint server before peer review. Preprints are associated with a variety of benefits, including the ability to rapidly communicate research, the opportunity for researchers to receive feedback and raise awareness of their research, and broad and unrestricted access. For early-career researchers, preprints also provide a mechanism for demonstrating research progress and productivity without the lengthy timelines of traditional journal publishing. Despite these benefits, few health professions education (HPE) research articles are deposited as preprints, suggesting that preprinting is not currently integrated into HPE culture. In this article, the authors describe preprints, their benefits and related risks, and the potential barriers that hamper their widespread use within HPE. In particular, the authors propose the barriers of discordant messaging and the lack of formal and informal education on how to deposit, critically appraise, and use preprints. To mitigate these barriers, several recommendations are proposed to facilitate preprints in becoming an accepted and encouraged component of HPE culture, allowing the field to take full advantage of this evolving form of research dissemination.

Examining Vaccine Sentiment on Twitter and Local Vaccine Deployment during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Understanding local public attitudes toward receiving vaccines is vital to successful vaccine campaigns. Social media platforms may help uncover vaccine sentiments during infectious disease outbreaks at the local level, and whether offline local events support vaccine-promotion efforts. Communication Infrastructure Theory (CIT) served as a guiding framework for this case study of the San Diego region examining local public sentiment toward vaccines expressed on Twitter during the COVID-19 pandemic. We performed a sentiment analysis (including positivity and subjectivity) of 187,349 tweets gathered from May 2020 to March 2021, and examined how sentiment corresponded with local vaccine deployment. The months of November and December (52.9%) 2020 saw a majority of tweets expressing positive sentiment and coincided with announcements of offline local events signaling San Diego's imminent deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Across all months, tweets remained mostly objective (never falling below 63%). In terms of CIT, considering multiple levels of the Story Telling Network in online spaces, and examining sentiment about vaccines on Twitter may help scholars to explore the Communication Action Context, as well as cultivate positive community attitudes to improve the Field of Health Action regarding vaccines. Real-time analysis of local tweets during development and deployment of new vaccines may help monitor local public responses and guide promotion of immunizations in communities.

Outpatient purchasing patterns of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin in the USA and Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time series analysis from 2016 to 2021

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin received widespread attention after initial studies suggested that they were effective against COVID-19. However, several of these studies were later discredited.

OBJECTIVES

We explored the impact of scientific articles, public announcements and social media posts on hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin purchases in the USA and Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, population-based time series analysis of retail hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin purchases in the USA and Canada from February 2016 through to December 2021, using IQVIA's Multinational Integrated Data Analysis database. We fitted the purchasing rates with interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models. We used Google Trends to identify the most influential interventions to include in the models.

RESULTS

There were significant pulse increases in hydroxychloroquine purchases in March 2020 in both the USA (P < 0.0001) and Canada (P < 0.0001). For ivermectin, there were no significant changes in April 2020 in either the USA (P = 0.41) or Canada (P = 0.16); however, significant pulse increases occurred from December 2020 to January 2021 in both the USA (P = 0.0006) and Canada (P < 0.0001), as well as significant ramp increases from April to August 2021 in both the USA (P < 0.0001) and Canada (P = 0.02). The increases in ivermectin purchases were larger in the USA than in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

Increases in hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin purchasing rates aligned with controversial scientific articles and social media posts. This highlights the importance of scientific integrity and disseminating accurate epidemiologic information during pandemics.

Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists' use and perception of preprints

This qualitative study explores how and why journalists use preprints-unreviewed research papers-in their reporting. Through thematic analysis of interviews conducted with 19 health and science journalists in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, it applies a theoretical framework that conceptualizes COVID-19 preprint research as a form of post-normal science, characterized by high scientific uncertainty and societal relevance, urgent need for political decision-making, and value-related policy considerations. Findings suggest that journalists approach the decision to cover preprints as a careful calculation, in which the potential public benefits and the ease of access preprints provided were weighed against risks of spreading misinformation. Journalists described viewing unreviewed studies with extra skepticism and relied on diverse strategies to find, vet, and report on them. Some of these strategies represent standard science journalism, while others, such as labeling unreviewed studies as preprints, mark a departure from the norm. However, journalists also reported barriers to covering preprints, as many felt they lacked the expertise or the time required to fully understand or vet the research. The findings suggest that coverage of preprints is likely to continue post-pandemic, with important implications for scientists, journalists, and the publics who read their work.

Identifying science in the news: An assessment of the precision and recall of Altmetric.com news mention data

The company Altmetric is often used to collect mentions of research in online news stories, yet there have been concerns about the quality of this data. This study investigates these concerns. Using a manual content analysis of 400 news stories as a comparison method, we analyzed the precision and recall with which Altmetric identified mentions of research in 8 news outlets. We also used logistic regression to identify the characteristics of research mentions that influence their likelihood of being successfully identified. We find that, for a predefined set of outlets, Altmetric’s news mention data were relatively accurate (F-score = 0.80), with very high precision (0.95) and acceptable recall (0.70), although recall is below 0.50 for some news outlets. Altmetric is more likely to successfully identify mentions of research that include a hyperlink to the research item, an author name, and/or the title of a publication venue. This data source appears to be less reliable for mentions of research that provide little or no bibliometric information, as well as for identifying mentions of scholarly monographs, conference presentations, dissertations, and non-English research articles. Our findings suggest that, with caveats, scholars can use Altmetric news mention data as a relatively reliable source to identify research mentions across a range of outlets with high precision and acceptable recall, offering scholars the potential to conserve resources during data collection. Our study does not, however, offer an assessment of completeness or accuracy of Altmetric news data overall.

The role of blogs and news sites in science communication during the COVID-19 pandemic

We present a brief review of literature related to blogs and news sites; our focus is on publications related to COVID-19. We primarily focus on the role of blogs and news sites in disseminating research on COVID-19 to the wider public, that is knowledge transfer channels. The review is for researchers and practitioners in scholarly communication and social media studies of science who would like to find out more about the role of blogs and news sites during the COVID-19 pandemic. From our review, we see that blogs and news sites are widely used as scholarly communication channels and are closely related to each other. That is, the same research might be reported in blogs and news sites at the same time. They both play a particular role in higher education and research systems, due to the increasing blogging and science communication activity of researchers and higher education institutions (HEIs). We conclude that these two media types have been playing an important role for a long time in disseminating research, which even increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. This can be verified, for example, through knowledge graphs on COVID-19 publications that contain a significant amount of scientific publications mentioned in blogs and news sites.

A guide to preprinting for early-career researchers

The use of preprints, research manuscripts shared publicly before completing the traditional peer-review process, is becoming a more common practice among life science researchers. Early-career researchers (ECRs) benefit from posting preprints as they are shareable, citable, and prove productivity. However, preprinting a manuscript involves a discussion among all co-authors, and ECRs are often not the decision-makers. Therefore, ECRs may find themselves in situations where they are interested in depositing a preprint but are unsure how to approach their co-authors or advisor about preprinting. Leveraging our own experiences as ECRs, and feedback from the research community, we have constructed a guide for ECRs who are considering preprinting to enable them to take ownership over the process and to raise awareness about preprinting options. We hope that this guide helps ECRs to initiate conversations about preprinting with co-authors and encourage them to preprint their future research.

Summary: Are you an early-career researcher considering preprinting, but unsure how to approach conversations about the possibility? Here, we discuss preprinting and provide tips to enable you to take ownership over the process.

The Asymmetric Influence of Emotion in the Sharing of COVID-19 Science on Social Media: Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Unlike past pandemics, COVID-19 is different to the extent that there is an unprecedented surge in both peer-reviewed and preprint research publications, and important scientific conversations about it are rampant on online social networks, even among laypeople. Clearly, this new phenomenon of scientific discourse is not well understood in that we do not know the diffusion patterns of peer-reviewed publications vis-à-vis preprints and what makes them viral.

OBJECTIVE

This paper aimed to examine how the emotionality of messages about preprint and peer-reviewed publications shapes their diffusion through online social networks in order to inform health science communicators' and policy makers' decisions on how to promote reliable sharing of crucial pandemic science on social media.

METHODS

We collected a large sample of Twitter discussions of early (January to May 2020) COVID-19 medical research outputs, which were tracked by Altmetric, in both preprint servers and peer-reviewed journals, and conducted statistical analyses to examine emotional valence, specific emotions, and the role of scientists as content creators in influencing the retweet rate.

RESULTS

Our large-scale analyses (n=243,567) revealed that scientific publication tweets with positive emotions were transmitted faster than those with negative emotions, especially for messages about preprints. Our results also showed that scientists' participation in social media as content creators could accentuate the positive emotion effects on the sharing of peer-reviewed publications.

CONCLUSIONS

Clear communication of critical science is crucial in the nascent stage of a pandemic. By revealing the emotional dynamics in the social media sharing of COVID-19 scientific outputs, our study offers scientists and policy makers an avenue to shape the discussion and diffusion of emerging scientific publications through manipulation of the emotionality of tweets. Scientists could use emotional language to promote the diffusion of more reliable peer-reviewed articles, while avoiding using too much positive emotional language in social media messages about preprints if they think that it is too early to widely communicate the preprint (not peer reviewed) data to the public.

Reporting preprints in the media during the COVID-19 pandemic

Preprints have gained prominence in the dissemination of scientific findings. This development has been reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to require the rapid dissemination of new scientific information. However, since preprints usually have not undergone peer review, they lack the rigour of other scientific publications such as journal articles. This presents a challenge for the news media tasked with keeping the public informed about the latest scientific developments in the context of great uncertainty during a global pandemic. This research note investigates the reporting of scientific information from preprints in 80 news articles identified in news articles related to COVID-19 published in four South African online media outlets. Our results show that despite the publication of guidelines for reporting on preprints in the media, there is still a way to go regarding the judicious use of scientific information from preprints by the news media.

Reporting COVID-19 preprints: fast science in newspapers in the United States, the United Kingdom and Brazil

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the pace of science. Many scientific data are published on preprint repositories, prior to peer review, which raises questions about the credibility of the information not yet validated by other scientists. We analyzed 76 stories published from January to July 2020 by three newspapers (The New York Times - USA, The Guardian - UK and Folha de S. Paulo - Brazil), having as topic studies on COVID-19 published on preprint platforms. The objective was to analyze how the media covered non-peer-reviewed research, in countries marked by conflicting discourses prompted by the denialist attitude of their government leaders. The results show that the newspapers did not provide a detailed explanation of what a preprint platform is, how the process of publishing research results works, and the implications of a study that has not yet been peer reviewed. The analysis also reveals how these news outlets were guided by the anxiety from an unknown disease, focusing on research on drug trials and seroprevalence. The study leads us to reflect on the challenges and weaknesses of covering fast science and the need to broaden the public's understanding of the methods and processes of science.

Communicating scientific uncertainty in a rapidly evolving situation: a framing analysis of Canadian coverage in early days of COVID-19

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic brought the production of scientific knowledge onto the public agenda in real-time. News media and commentators analysed the successes and failures of the pandemic response in real-time, bringing the process of scientific inquiry, which is also fraught with uncertainty, onto the public agenda. We examine how Canadian newspapers framed scientific uncertainty in their initial coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic and how journalists made sense of the scientific process.

Methods

We conducted a framing analysis of 1143 news stories and opinion during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a qualitative analysis software, our analysis focused, first, on how scientific uncertainty was framed in hard news and opinion discourse (editorial, op-ed). Second, we compared how specialist health and science reporters discussed scientific evidence versus non-specialist reporters in hard news and columns.

Results

Uncertainty emerged as a “master frame” across the sample, and four additional framing strategies were used by reporters and commentators when covering the pandemic: (1), evidence -focusing on presence or absence of it-; (2) transparency and leadership -focusing on the pandemic response-; (3) duelling experts – highlighting disagreement among experts or criticizing public health decisions for not adhering to expert recommendations-; and (4) mixed messaging -criticizing public health communication efforts. While specialist journalists understood that scientific knowledge evolves and the process is fraught with uncertainty, non-specialist reporters and commentators expressed frustration over changing public health guidelines, leading to the politicization of the pandemic response and condemnation of elected officials’ decisions.

Conclusions

Managing scientific uncertainty in evolving science-policy situations requires timely and clear communication. Public health officials and political leaders need to provide clear and consistent messages and access to data regarding infection prevention guidelines. Public health officials should quickly engage in communication course corrections if original messages are missing the intended mark, and clearly explain the shift. Finally, public health communicators should be aware of and more responsive to a variety of media reporters, who will bring different interpretative frames to their reporting. More care and effort are needed in these communication engagements to minimize inconsistencies, uncertainty, and politicization.

Selfless or Selfish? The impact of message framing and egoistic motivation on narcissists' compliance with preventive health behaviors during COVID-19

COVID-19 is one of the greatest international health crises in recent years. Due to the highly contagious nature of the virus, the World Health Organization has recommended that people comply with a set of preventive measures to reduce the infection rate (e.g., social distancing, wearing a face mask, thorough personal hygiene). However, people typically differ in the extent to which they are willing to comply with such recommendations, as they imply certain personal restrictions. The present study aimed to investigate whether narcissism levels and message framing strategies affect individuals' willingness to accept personal restrictions and, consequently, comply with a set of preventive health behaviors. Results reveal that people high (vs. low) in grandiose narcissism are less likely to accept personal restrictions and comply with preventive health behaviors, with negative (vs. positive) message framing constituting a more effective strategy for convincing such individuals to comply with said restrictions and behaviors. This effect can be explained through a more pronounced willingness of participants high in grandiose narcissism to accept personal restrictions to protect themselves (egoistic motivation) but not through a willingness to protect vulnerable people (altruistic motivation). Our findings suggest that individuals who remain uncooperative during pandemics could be more effectively addressed with adapted message framing strategies and incentives tailor-made for their distinct personalities.

Communication of Uncertainty about Preliminary Evidence and the Spread of Its Inferred Misinformation during the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Weibo Case Study

The rapid spread of preliminary scientific evidence is raising concerns on its role in producing misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. This research investigated how the communication of uncertainty about preliminary evidence affects the spread of its inferred misinformation in a Weibo case study. In total, 3439 Weibo posts and 10,380 reposts regarding the misinformation of pets transmitting COVID-19 were analyzed. The results showed that attitude ambiguity toward the preliminary evidence and the stage when the evidence was first released with uncertainty were associated with higher numbers of likes and retweets of misinformation posts. Our study highlights the internal sources of misinformation and revisits the contextual perspective in misinformation studies.

Lessons from arXiv's 30 years of information sharing

Since the launch of arXiv 30 years ago, modes of information spread in society have changed dramatically - and not always for the better. Paul Ginsparg, who founded arXiv, discusses how academic experience with online preprints can still inform information sharing more generally.

The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape

The world continues to face a life-threatening viral pandemic. The virus underlying the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused over 98 million confirmed cases and 2.2 million deaths since January 2020. Although the most recent respiratory viral pandemic swept the globe only a decade ago, the way science operates and responds to current events has experienced a cultural shift in the interim. The scientific community has responded rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic, releasing over 125,000 COVID-19-related scientific articles within 10 months of the first confirmed case, of which more than 30,000 were hosted by preprint servers. We focused our analysis on bioRxiv and medRxiv, 2 growing preprint servers for biomedical research, investigating the attributes of COVID-19 preprints, their access and usage rates, as well as characteristics of their propagation on online platforms. Our data provide evidence for increased scientific and public engagement with preprints related to COVID-19 (COVID-19 preprints are accessed more, cited more, and shared more on various online platforms than non-COVID-19 preprints), as well as changes in the use of preprints by journalists and policymakers. We also find evidence for changes in preprinting and publishing behaviour: COVID-19 preprints are shorter and reviewed faster. Our results highlight the unprecedented role of preprints and preprint servers in the dissemination of COVID-19 science and the impact of the pandemic on the scientific communication landscape.

What cancer research makes the news? A quantitative analysis of online news stories that mention cancer studies

Journalists’ health and science reporting aid the public’s direct access to research through the inclusion of hyperlinks leading to original studies in peer-reviewed journals. While this effort supports the US-government mandate that research be made widely available, little is known about what research journalists share with the public. This cross-sectional exploratory study characterises US-government-funded research on cancer that appeared most frequently in news coverage and how that coverage varied by cancer type, disease incidence and mortality rates. The subject of analysis was 11436 research articles (published in 2016) on cancer funded by the US government and 642 news stories mentioning at least one of these articles. Based on Altmetric data, researchers identified articles via PubMed and characterised each based on the news media attention received online. Only 1.88% (n = 213) of research articles mentioning US government-funded cancer research included at least one mention in an online news publication. This is in contrast to previous research that found 16.8% (n = 1925) of articles received mention by online mass media publications. Of the 13 most common cancers in the US, 12 were the subject of at least one news mention; only urinary and bladder cancer received no mention. Traditional news sources included significantly more mentions of research on common cancers than digital native news sources. However, a general discrepancy exists between cancers prominent in news sources and those with the highest mortality rate. For instance, lung cancer accounted for the most deaths annually, while melanoma led to 56% less annual deaths; however, journalists cited research regarding these cancers nearly equally. Additionally, breast cancer received the greatest coverage per estimated annual death, while pancreatic cancer received the least coverage per death. Findings demonstrated a continued misalignment between prevalent cancers and cancers mentioned in online news media. Additionally, cancer control and prevention received less coverage from journalists than other cancer continuum stages, highlighting a continued underrepresentation of prevention-focused research. Results revealed a need for further scholarship regarding the role of journalists in research dissemination.