Characteristics of medical research news reported on front pages of newspapers

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

In this article, we investigate the surge in use of COVID-19-related preprints by media outlets. Journalists are a main source of reliable public health information during crises and, until recently, journalists have been reluctant to cover preprints because of the associated scientific uncertainty. Yet, uploads of COVID-19 preprints and their uptake by online media have outstripped that of preprints about any other topic. Using an innovative approach combining altmetrics methods with content analysis, we identified a diversity of outlets covering COVID-19-related preprints during the early months of the pandemic, including specialist medical news outlets, traditional news media outlets, and aggregators. We found a ubiquity of hyperlinks as citations and a multiplicity of framing devices for highlighting the scientific uncertainty associated with COVID-19 preprints. These devices were rarely used consistently (e.g., mentioning that the study was a preprint, unreviewed, preliminary, and/or in need of verification). About half of the stories we analyzed contained framing devices emphasizing uncertainty. Outlets in our sample were much less likely to identify the research they mentioned as preprint research, compared to identifying it as simply "research." This work has significant implications for public health communication within the changing media landscape. While current best practices in public health risk communication promote identifying and promoting trustworthy sources of information, the uptake of preprint research by online media presents new challenges. At the same time, it provides new opportunities for fostering greater awareness of the scientific uncertainty associated with health research findings.

Microbiome research in general and business newspapers: How many microbiome articles are published and which study designs make the news the most?

The microbiome is a matter of interest for science, consumers and business. Our objective is to quantify that interest in academic journals and newspapers, both quantitatively and by study design. We calculated the number of articles on the microbiome from the total number of biomedicine articles featured in both PubMed and Spanish science news agency SINC, from 2008 to 2018. We used the Factiva database to identify news stories on microbiome papers in three general newspapers (The New York Times, The Times and El País) and three business newspapers (The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and Expansión), from 2007 to 2019. Then, we compared news stories with microbiome papers in PubMed, while also analyzing the frequencies of five study design types, both in the newspapers and in the papers themselves. Microbiome papers represented 0.8% of biomedicine papers in PubMed from 2008 to 2018 (increasing from 0.4% to 1.4%), while microbiome news published by SINC represented 1.6% of total biomedical news stories during the same period (increasing from 0.2% to 2.2%). The number of news stories on microbiome papers correlated with the number of microbiome papers (0.91, p < 0.001) featured in general newspapers, but not in business ones. News stories on microbiome papers represented 78.9% and 42.7% of all microbiome articles in general and business newspapers, respectively. Both media outlet types tended to over-report observational studies in humans while under-reporting environmental studies, while the representation of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials, randomized controlled trials and animal/laboratory studies was similar when comparing newspapers and PubMed. The microbiome is receiving increasing attention in academic journals and newspapers. News stories on the microbiome in general and business newspapers are mostly based on research findings and are more interested in observational studies in humans and less in environmental studies compared to PubMed.

Cancer in the news: Bias and quality in media reporting of cancer research

Cancer research in the news is often associated with sensationalised and inaccurate reporting, which may give rise to false hopes and expectations. The role of study selection for cancer-related news stories is an important but less commonly acknowledged issue, as the outcomes of primary research are generally less reliable than those of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Few studies have investigated the quality of research that makes the news and no previous analyses of the proportions of primary and secondary research in the news have been found in the literature. We analysed distribution of study types, research sources, reporting quality, gender bias, and national bias in online news reports by four major news outlets in USA, UK and Australia over six-months. We measured significant variation in reporting quality and observed biases in many aspects of cancer research reporting, including the types of study selected for coverage, the spectrum of cancer types, gender of scientists, and geographical source of research represented. We discuss the implications of these findings for guiding accurate, contextual reporting of cancer research, which is critical in helping the public understand complex science, appreciate the outcomes of publicly-funded research, maintain trust, and assist informed decision-making. The striking gender bias observed may compromise high-quality coverage of research by limiting diversity of opinion, reinforces stereotypes and skews public visibility and recognition towards male scientists. Our findings provide useful guidelines for scientists and journalists alike to consider in providing the most informative and accurate reporting of research.

A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication

Uncertainty is inherent to science and science communication. However, the evidence appears mixed regarding whether portraying uncertainty in science communication has positive or negative effects. We review a diverse range of experimental literature (k = 48; from 40 searches and 8000 retrievals), summarize the extant findings, and observe how the effects vary across four different types of communicated uncertainty (deficient, technical, scientific, and consensus uncertainty). The results indicate that most findings of negative effects (such as reduced credibility and beliefs) are from experiments that operationalized uncertainty as disagreement or conflict in science (consensus uncertainty). In this review, consensus uncertainty was never found to have positive effects. In contrast, uncertainty in the form of quantified error ranges and probabilities (technical uncertainty) in these studies has had only positive or null effects, not negative effects. We also highlight frequent moderators of the effects of uncertainty, such as prior beliefs and worldviews.

Messaging in Biological Psychiatry: Misrepresentations, Their Causes, and Potential Consequences

Most experts in the field of psychiatry recognize that neuroscience advances have yet to be translated into clinical practice. The main message delivered to laypeople, however, is that mental disorders are brain diseases cured by scientifically designed medications. Here we describe how this misleading message is generated. We summarize the academic studies describing how biomedical observations are often misrepresented in the scientific literature through various forms of data embellishment, publication biases favoring initial and positive studies, improper interpretations, and exaggerated conclusions. These misrepresentations also affect biological psychiatry and are spread through mass media documents. Exacerbated competition, hyperspecialization, and the need to obtain funding for research projects might drive scientists to misrepresent their findings. Moreover, journalists are unaware that initial studies, even when positive and promising, are inherently uncertain. Journalists preferentially cover them and almost never inform the public when those studies are disconfirmed by subsequent research. This explains why reductionist theories about mental health often persist in mass media even though the scientific claims that have been put forward to support them have long been contradicted. These misrepresentations affect the care of patients. Indeed, studies show that a neuro-essentialist conceptualization of mental disorders negatively affects several aspects of stigmatization, reduces the chances of patients' healing, and overshadows psychotherapeutic and social approaches that have been found effective in alleviating mental suffering. Public information about mental health should avoid these reporting biases and give equal consideration to the biological, psychological, and social aspects of mental health.

Can we improve the quality of medical news merely by increasing journalists' health knowledge?

Background: The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of an educational intervention on the quality of health research-based news, given the sensitivity of disseminating incorrect information.

Methods: An uncontrolled before-after study was conducted among health news producers in Tehran from November 2011 to March 2012. The intervention that included educational content in the form of a workshop was evaluated in advance. The outcome of measuring the scientific quality of news extracted from medical and health research results was considered for authenticity and accuracy. The health research-based news quality assessment tool was used. In this study, 32 individuals voluntarily entered the program, and their produced news was collected in 4 stages. To determine the effectiveness of the educational intervention, paired t-tests were used. SPSS version 17 was used for statistical analysis and p<0.05 was considered significant.

Results: The mean score (±SD) of the participants' produced news was 0.40 (±0.089) before and 0.61 (±0.086) after the intervention, which increased by 0.21±0.09 (p<0.001). Of the news collected from the participants as baseline data, 544 (65%) articles aimed at increasing public knowledge and awareness. Almost all the news had been gathered from interviews, and only 41 (4.8%) news articles were based on health research results.

Conclusion: The educational intervention proved effective in promoting the quality of health research news. Only a few health journalists participated in this study, and thus the need to educate health news producers is felt. Since interviews with health researchers and experts were the largest source of news, interventions need to target other groups who affect the quality and accuracy of the news.

Assessing the impact of the public nutrition information environment: Adapting the cancer information overload scale to measure diet information overload

OBJECTIVE

A growing body of research suggests that exposure to too much information - particularly contradictory information that characterizes much health-related information - can lead to feeling overwhelmed. This construct has been conflated with fatalistic beliefs that are negatively associated with preventive behaviors. The objective of this study was to adapt the 8-item Cancer Information Overload (CIO) scale to assess overload of healthy diet information.

METHODS

Confirmatory factor analyses with a community sample of rural California adults (n = 290; 75% female; 58% Latino; 46% ≤ H.S./G.E.D.).

RESULTS

Items assessing Diet Information Overload loaded significantly on their relevant factor; factor loadings were acceptable (β >.40). The adapted original scale (CFI = 1.000, RSMEA = .000, SMSR = .022) and a shorter 5-item scale (CFI = .984, RMSEA = .051, SMSR = .026) fit well.

CONCLUSION

The Cancer Information Overload scale was successfully adapted and shortened to measure perceptions - previously mischaracterized as fatalistic - pertaining to diet information. Improved measures distinguishing between fatalistic beliefs and outcomes of the information environment are critical.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Understanding information overload is important for shaping prevention messages distinct from those needed to address fatalistic beliefs. Nutrition education efforts should consider the broader - cluttered - information environment in which nutrition education and communication occurs, and public health messages may drown.

Communicating Uncertain Science to the Public: How Amount and Source of Uncertainty Impact Fatalism, Backlash, and Overload

Public dissemination of scientific research often focuses on the finding (e.g., nanobombs kill lung cancer) rather than the uncertainty/limitations (e.g., in mice). Adults (n = 880) participated in an experiment where they read a manipulated news report about cancer research (a) that contained either low or high uncertainty (b) that was attributed to the scientists responsible for the research (disclosure condition) or an unaffiliated scientist (dueling condition). Compared to the dueling condition, the disclosure condition triggered less prevention-focused cancer fatalism and nutritional backlash.

Stakeholders' rationales for representing uncertainties of biotechnological research

Although various stakeholders are involved in public communication about science and technology, research so far has focused on scientists, journalists, and the public. Based on representative telephone surveys of the spokespersons of 55 German companies, 31 government agencies, 43 public interest groups, as well as 105 scientists, we investigated actors' intentions to point out the scientific uncertainty of biotechnological research in their public communications. The different groups of actors' intentions to mention uncertain aspects of biotechnological research in public are guided by different rationales. Scientists and company representatives' intentions to point out uncertainty are strengthened by their hope to promote biotechnological research and weakened by their fear to increase public criticism. Public interest groups' intentions are strengthened by their hope to increase public criticism and are weakened by their fear to promote biotechnological research. Representatives of government agencies are predominantly influenced by their will to do justice to their organizations' interests.

Media Reporting of Practice-Changing Clinical Trials in Oncology: A North American Perspective

INTRODUCTION

Media reporting of clinical trials impacts patient-oncologist interactions. We sought to characterize the accuracy of media and Internet reporting of practice-changing clinical trials in oncology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The first media articles referencing 17 practice-changing clinical trials were collected from 4 media outlets: newspapers, cable news, cancer websites, and industry websites. Measured outcomes were media reporting score, social media score, and academic citation score. The media reporting score was a measure of completeness of information detailed in media articles as scored by a 15-point scoring instrument. The social media score represented the ubiquity of social media presence referencing 17 practice-changing clinical trials in cancer as determined by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in its annual report, entitled Clinical Cancer Advances 2012; social media score was calculated from Twitter, Facebook, and Google searches. The academic citation score comprised total citations from Google Scholar plus the Scopus database, which represented the academic impact per clinical cancer advance.

RESULTS

From 170 media articles, 107 (63%) had sufficient data for analysis. Cohen's κ coefficient demonstrated reliability of the media reporting score instrument with a coefficient of determination of 94%. Per the media reporting score, information was most complete from industry, followed by cancer websites, newspapers, and cable news. The most commonly omitted items, in descending order, were study limitations, exclusion criteria, conflict of interest, and other. The social media score was weakly correlated with academic citation score.

CONCLUSION

Media outlets appear to have set a low bar for coverage of many practice-changing advances in oncology, with reports of scientific breakthroughs often omitting basic study facts and cautions, which may mislead the public. The media should be encouraged to use a standardized reporting template and provide accessible references to original source information whenever feasible.

Interpretation of Results of Studies Evaluating an Intervention Highlighted in Google Health News: A Cross-Sectional Study of News

BACKGROUND

Mass media through the Internet is a powerful means of disseminating medical research. We aimed to determine whether and how the interpretation of research results is misrepresented by the use of "spin" in the health section of Google News. Spin was defined as specific way of reporting, from whatever motive (intentional or unintentional), to emphasize that the beneficial effect of the intervention is greater than that shown by the results.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study of news highlighted in the health section of US, UK and Canada editions of Google News between July 2013 and January 2014. We searched for news items for 3 days a week (i.e., Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) during 6 months and selected a sample of 130 news items reporting a scientific article evaluating the effect of an intervention on human health.

RESULTS

In total, 78% of the news did not provide a full reference or electronic link to the scientific article. We found at least one spin in 114 (88%) news items and 18 different types of spin in news. These spin were mainly related to misleading reporting (59%) such as not reporting adverse events that were reported in the scientific article (25%), misleading interpretation (69%) such as claiming a causal effect despite non-randomized study design (49%) and overgeneralization/misleading extrapolation (41%) of the results such as extrapolating a beneficial effect from an animal study to humans (21%). We also identified some new types of spin such as highlighting a single patient experience for the success of a new treatment instead of focusing on the group results.

CONCLUSIONS

Interpretation of research results was frequently misrepresented in the health section of Google News. However, we do not know whether these spin were from the scientific articles themselves or added in the news.

When Medical News Comes from Press Releases-A Case Study of Pancreatic Cancer and Processed Meat

The media have a key role in communicating advances in medicine to the general public, yet the accuracy of medical journalism is an under-researched area. This project adapted an established monitoring instrument to analyse all identified news reports (n = 312) on a single medical research paper: a meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Cancer which showed a modest link between processed meat consumption and pancreatic cancer. Our most significant finding was that three sources (the journal press release, a story on the BBC News website and a story appearing on the ‘NHS Choices’ website) appeared to account for the content of over 85% of the news stories which covered the meta analysis, with many of them being verbatim or moderately edited copies and most not citing their source. The quality of these 3 primary sources varied from excellent (NHS Choices, 10 of 11 criteria addressed) to weak (journal press release, 5 of 11 criteria addressed), and this variance was reflected in the accuracy of stories derived from them. Some of the methods used in the original meta-analysis, and a proposed mechanistic explanation for the findings, were challenged in a subsequent commentary also published in the British Journal of Cancer, but this discourse was poorly reflected in the media coverage of the story.

Advancing cancer control research in an emerging news media environment

Cancer is both highly feared and highly newsworthy, and there is a robust body of research documenting the content and effects of cancer news coverage on health behaviors and policy. Recent years have witnessed ongoing, transformative shifts in American journalism alongside rapid advances in communication technology and the public information environment. These changes create a pressing need to consider a new set of research questions, sampling strategies, measurement techniques, and theories of media effects to ensure continued relevance and adaptation of communication research to address critical cancer control concerns. This paper begins by briefly reviewing what we know about the role of cancer news in shaping cancer-related beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and policies. We then outline challenges and opportunities, both theoretical and methodological, posed by the rapidly changing news media environment and the nature of audience engagement. We organize our discussion around three major shifts associated with the emerging news media environment as it relates to health communication: 1) speed and dynamism of news diffusion, 2) increased narrowcasting of media content for specialized audiences, and 3) broadened participation in shaping media content. In so doing, we articulate a set of questions for future theory and research, in an effort to catalyze innovative communication scholarship to improve cancer prevention and control.

Public estimates of cancer frequency: cancer incidence perceptions mirror distorted media depictions

Compared with incidence rates, certain cancers are over- or underrepresented in news coverage. Past content analytic research has consistently documented these news distortions, but no study has examined whether they are related to public perception of cancer incidence. Adults (N = 400) completed a survey with questions about perceived cancer incidence, news consumption, and attention to health news. Cancer incidence perceptions paralleled previously documented news distortions. Overrepresented cancers were overestimated (e.g., blood, head/brain) and underrepresented cancers were underestimated (e.g., male reproductive, lymphatic, thyroid, and bladder). Self-reported news consumption was related to perceptual distortions such that heavier consumers were more likely to demonstrate distorted perceptions of four cancers (bladder, blood, breast, and kidney). Distortions in risk perception and news coverage also mirrored discrepancies in federal funding for cancer research. Health care professionals, journalists, and the public should be educated about these distortions to reduce or mitigate potential negative effects on health behavior and decision making.

Media coverage of medical journals: do the best articles make the news?

Background

News coverage of medical research is followed closely by many Americans and affects the practice of medicine and influence of scientific research. Prior work has examined the quality of media coverage, but no investigation has characterized the choice of stories covered in a controlled manner. We examined whether the media systematically covers stories of weaker study design.

Methods

We compared study characteristics of 75 clinically-oriented journal articles that received coverage in the top five newspapers by circulation against 75 clinically-oriented journal articles that appeared in the top five medical journals by impact factor over a similar timespan. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine whether differences between investigations from both sources varied by study type (randomized controlled trial [RCT] or observational study).

Results

Investigations receiving coverage from newspapers were less likely to be RCTs (17% vs. 35%, p = 0.016) and more likely to be observational studies (75% vs. 47%, p<0.001). No difference was observed in number of people studied (median: 1034 vs. 1901, p = 0.14) or length of follow-up (median: 1.80 vs. 1.00 years, p = 0.22). In subgroup analysis, observational studies from the media used smaller sample sizes (median: 1984 vs. 21136, p = 0.029) and were more likely to be cross-sectional (71% vs. 31%, p<0.001), while no differences were observed for RCTs.

Conclusions

Newspapers were more likely to cover observational studies and less likely to cover RCTs than high impact journals. Additionally, when the media does cover observational studies, they select articles of inferior quality. Newspapers preferentially cover medical research with weaker methodology.

Content and effects of news stories about uncertain cancer causes and preventive behaviors

This article presents findings from two studies that describe news portrayals of cancer causes and prevention in local TV and test the effects of typical aspects of this coverage on cancer-related fatalism and overload. Study 1 analyzed the content of stories focused on cancer causes and prevention from an October 2002 national sample of local TV and newspaper cancer coverage (n = 122 television stations; n = 60 newspapers). Informed by results from the content analysis, Study 2 describes results from a randomized experiment testing effects of the volume and content of news stories about cancer causes and prevention (n = 601). Study 1 indicates that local TV news stories describe cancer causes and prevention as comparatively more certain than newspapers but include less information about how to reduce cancer risk. Study 2 reveals that the combination of stories conveying an emerging cancer cause and prevention behavior as moderately certain leads to an increased sense of overload, while a short summary of well-established preventive behaviors mitigates these potentially harmful beliefs. We conclude with a series of recommendations for health communication and health journalism practice.

Quality of health news disseminated in the print media in developing countries: a case study in Iran

Background

Mass media play an important role in keeping people up-to-date with the latest health news. This study aims at investigating the quality of health news disseminated in the print media, its course of production and factors affecting its quality.

Methods

In the quantitative section of the study, 410 health-related news items, published during a six-month span in the Iranian public press, underwent content analysis. In the qualitative section, focus group discussions were held with journalists, editors-in-chief and news gatekeepers.

Results

The quantitative phase showed that 18% of the news articles were not fit for dissemination in public. The qualitative phase illustrated that multiple factors at various levels affect the quality of news, namely poor knowledge, inadequate motivations and context-related barriers.

Conclusions

The quality of health news reporting is not desirable. Educational interventions need to be carried out to raise awareness among researchers and journalists. Also, certain steps should be taken to increase motivations and strengthen infrastructures, including designing guidelines and monitoring news.

Conflicting stories about public scientific controversies: Effects of news convergence and divergence on scientists' credibility

Surveys suggest that approximately one third of news consumers have encountered conflicting reports of the same information. News coverage of science is especially prone to conflict, but how news consumers perceive this situation is currently unknown. College students (N = 242) participated in a lab experiment where they were exposed to news coverage about one of two scientific controversies in the United States: dioxin in sewage sludge or the reintroduction of gray wolves to populated areas. Participants received (a) one news article (control), (b) two news articles that were consistent (convergent), or (c) two news articles that conflicted (divergent). The effects of divergence induced uncertainty differed by news story. Greater uncertainty was associated with increased scientists' credibility ratings for those reading dioxin regulation articles and decreased scientists' credibility ratings for those reading wolf reintroduction articles. Unlike other manifestations of uncertainty in scientific discourse, conflicting stories seem to generate effects that vary significantly by topic. Consistent with uncertainty management theory, uncertainty is embraced or rejected by situation.

What your patient reads: creating a value-added tool for physicians

Through a number of media sources, today's consumers have unprecedented access to health information of varying reliability and authority. Empowered by this information, patients are more involved in their health care decisions and more willing to question physicians' advice. This poses a challenge for physicians who must now find time to read mass media health reports in addition to medical research. In order to help physicians with this task, librarians at the University of Manitoba Health Sciences Libraries created What Your Patient Reads - one-page summaries of health-related media reports supplemented with references to evidence-based medical literature.

Including limitations in news coverage of cancer research: effects of news hedging on fatalism, medical skepticism, patient trust, and backlash

Past research has demonstrated that news coverage of cancer research, and scientific research generally, rarely contains discourse-based hedging, including caveats, limitations, and uncertainties. In a multiple message experiment (k = 4 news stories, N = 1082), the authors examined whether hedging shaped the perceptions of news consumers. The results revealed that participants were significantly less fatalistic about cancer (p = .039) and marginally less prone to nutritional backlash (p = .056) after exposure to hedged articles. Participants exposed to articles mentioning a second researcher (unaffiliated with the present study) exhibited greater trust in medical professions (p = .001). The findings provide additional support for the inclusion of discourse-based hedging in cancer news coverage and suggest that news consumers will use scientific uncertainty in illness representations.

Quality of reporting on the vegetative state in Italian newspapers. The case of Eluana Englaro

BACKGROUND

Media coverage of the vegetative state (VS) includes refutations of the VS diagnosis and describes behaviors inconsistent with VS. We used a quality score to assess the reporting in articles describing the medical characteristics of VS in Italian newspapers.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Our search covered a 7-month period from July 1, 2008, to February 28, 2009, using the online searchable databases of four major Italian newspapers: Corriere della Sera, La Repubblica, La Stampa, and Avvenire. Medical reporting was judged as complete if three core VS characteristics were described: patient unawareness of self and the environment, preserved wakefulness (eyes open), and spontaneous respiration (artificial ventilator not needed). We retrieved 2,099 articles, and 967 were dedicated to VS. Of these, 853 (88.2%) were non-medical and mainly focused on describing the political, legal, and ethical aspects of VS. Of the 114 (11.8%) medical articles, 53 (5.5%) discussed other medical problems such as death by dehydration, artificial nutrition, neuroimaging, brain death, or uterine hemorrhage, and 61 (6.3%) described VS. Of these 61, only 18 (1.9%) reported all three CORE characteristics and were judged complete. We found no differences among the four investigated newspapers (Fisher's exact  = 0.798), and incomplete articles were equally distributed between journalistic pieces and expert opinions (χ(2) = 1.8854, P = 0.170). Incorrect descriptions of VS were significantly more common among incomplete articles (13 of 43 vs. 1 of 18; Fisher's exact P = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

Core VS characteristics are rarely reported in Italian newspaper articles, which can alter adequate comprehension of new developments and (mis)inform political, legal, and ethical decisions.

Publication trends in newspapers and scientific journals for SSRIs and suicidality: a systematic longitudinal study

Background In the period 2003-2008, the regulatory authorities issued several warnings restricting the use of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in paediatrics, in reaction to safety concerns regarding the risk of suicidality. In this study, the SSRIs and suicidality controversy serves as a template to analyse the long-term publication trends regarding the benefit/risk profile of medications. The aim is to ascertain differences (in terms of numbers, categories and timing) between negative and positive newspaper and journal articles on SSRIs and suicidality and to ascertain correlations between changes in the reports and regulatory warnings. Methods A systematic review of scientific articles (Embase) and the Netherlands (NL) and the UK newspapers (LexisNexis) was performed between 2000 and 2010. Categorisation was done by 'effect' (related treatment effect), 'type of article' and 'age group'. The articles' positive-to-negative effect ratio was determined. Differences in distribution of effect categories were analysed across sources, type of article and age group using the Mann-Whitney (two subgroups) or Kruskal-Wallis test (three or more). Findings In total, 1141 articles were categorised: 352 scientific, 224 Dutch and 565 British newspaper articles. Scientific articles were predominantly on research and were positive, whereas newspaper articles were negative (ratios=3.50-scientific, 0.69-NL and 0.94-UK; p<0.001). Articles on paediatrics were less positive in scientific journals and more negative in newspapers (ratios=2.29-scientific, 0.26-NL and 0.20-UK; p<0.001), while articles on adults were positive overall (ratios=10.0-scientific, 1.06-NL and 1.70-UK; p<0.001). In addition, negative-effect reporting trends were exacerbated following regulatory warnings and were generally opinion articles, both in scientific journals and in newspapers (2003/2004 and after 2007). Interpretation The authors found a positive publication tendency inherent in journal research articles. This apparent positive publication bias present in scientific journals, however, does not seem to prevent the dissemination of 'bad' news about medications. The negative tendency present in Dutch and British newspapers was perceivable in the paediatrics group and during the warnings, indicating that national news media have informed the public about this international drug safety controversy on time.

Systematic differences in impact across publication tracks at PNAS

Background

Citation data can be used to evaluate the editorial policies and procedures of scientific journals. Here we investigate citation counts for the three different publication tracks of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). This analysis explores the consequences of differences in editor and referee selection, while controlling for the prestige of the journal in which the papers appear.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We find that papers authored and “Contributed” by NAS members (Track III) are on average cited less often than papers that are “Communicated” for others by NAS members (Track I) or submitted directly via the standard peer review process (Track II). However, we also find that the variance in the citation count of Contributed papers, and to a lesser extent Communicated papers, is larger than for direct submissions. Therefore when examining the 10% most-cited papers from each track, Contributed papers receive the most citations, followed by Communicated papers, while Direct submissions receive the least citations.

Conclusion/Significance

Our findings suggest that PNAS “Contributed” papers, in which NAS–member authors select their own reviewers, balance an overall lower impact with an increased probability of publishing exceptional papers. This analysis demonstrates that different editorial procedures are associated with different levels of impact, even within the same prominent journal, and raises interesting questions about the most appropriate metrics for judging an editorial policy's success.

Sources and coverage of medical news on front pages of US newspapers

Background

Medical news that appears on newspaper front pages is intended to reach a wide audience, but how this type of medical news is prepared and distributed has not been systematically researched. We thus quantified the level of visibility achieved by front-page medical stories in the United States and analyzed their news sources.

Methodology

Using the online resource Newseum, we investigated front-page newspaper coverage of four prominent medical stories, and a high-profile non-medical news story as a control, reported in the US in 2007. Two characteristics were quantified by two raters: which newspaper titles carried each target front-page story (interrater agreement, >96%; kappa, >0.92) and the news sources of each target story (interrater agreement, >94%; kappa, >0.91). National rankings of the top 200 US newspapers by audited circulation were used to quantify the extent of coverage as the proportion of the total circulation of ranked newspapers in Newseum.

Findings

In total, 1630 front pages were searched. Each medical story appeared on the front pages of 85 to 117 (67.5%–78.7%) ranked newspaper titles that had a cumulative daily circulation of 23.1 to 33.4 million, or 61.8% to 88.4% of all newspapers. In contrast, the non-medical story achieved front-page coverage in 152 (99.3%) newspaper titles with a total circulation of 41.0 million, or 99.8% of all newspapers. Front-page medical stories varied in their sources, but the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New York Times and the Associated Press together supplied 61.7% of the total coverage of target front-page medical stories.

Conclusion

Front-page coverage of medical news from different sources is more accurately revealed by analysis of circulation counts rather than of newspaper titles. Journals wishing to widen knowledge of research news and organizations with important health announcements should target at least the four dominant media organizations identified in this study.