The findings of a preprint are not definitive, and the publication of its results can generate mistrust in science.
|
Framing preliminary COVID-19 research as uncertain: a mixed-method study of public reactions Summary During the COVID-19 pandemic, journalists have been encouraged to convey uncertainty around preliminary scientific evidence, including mentioning it when research is unpublished or peer-reviewed. To understand how public audiences interpret this information, we conducted a mixed method study with US adults. Participants read a news article about preliminary COVID-19 vaccine research in early April 2021, just as the vaccine was widely available to the American public. We modified the article to test two ways of transmitting the uncertainty (coverage of scientific claims and mention of preprint status) in a 2 × 2 between-participant factorial design. To complement this, we collected open data to assess participants’ understanding of the concept of a scientific preprint. Overall, participants who read cover (vs. non-cover) versions of the article reported less favorable vaccine attitudes and intentions and found scientists and news reports less trustworthy. These effects were moderated by the participants’ epistemic beliefs and their preference for information over scientific uncertainty. However, there was no impact on the description of the study as a preprintand the qualitative responses of the participants indicated a limited understanding of the concept. We discuss the implications of these findings for communicating initial scientific evidence to the public and outline important next steps for research and theory building. |
Medical epistemic beliefs
Las epistemic beliefs they reflect people’s views on the nature of knowledge and the process of knowledge creation. In the context of medicine, people may perceive scientific knowledge as evolutionary and fallible (ie view it as a continuous process) or as stable and unchanging (ie view it as fixed). In a recent study, people who considered science to be stable and unchanging they were more likely to say that they expected journalists to provide definitive information on the COVID-19 pandemic. It is logical that beliefs about the nature of medical science affect a person’s response to the disclosure of medical science. scientific uncertainty about vaccines against COVID-19. Those who see science as a process they probably expect uncertainty about new discoveries and, for them, disclosure is a gesture of transparency, while claims of certainty may arouse suspicion. Also, believe that uncertainty is inherent in science it might make one more apt to recognize its revelation. Conversely, those who believe that scientific knowledge is permanent they may view scientific uncertainty as a marker of low-quality research and (to the extent they perceive it) react unfavorably to its disclosure.
Comments
People don’t know what a preprint is. Here’s why that matters
New research from the University of Georgia suggests that most people don’t understand the difference between a preprint and an article published in an academic journal.
Los preprints they are research papers that have not undergone peer review, the process by which study findings are validated by experts who were not involved in the research. The study found that most readers have little to no understanding of what a preprint really is. That lack of understanding could lead to public distrust of science, as the findings and how those findings are described can change between the preprint phase and publication after peer review. Frequent reporting on scientific preprints could also damage confidence in the news.
Los preprints they used to circulate mostly within scientific communities, but the COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented number of preprints flooding the internet. The desire to get information as quickly as possible was understandable, the researchers said. But it also sets a troubling precedent.
“With preprints, there are still uncertainties that have not been resolved,” said Chelsea Ratcliff, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor in the department of communication studies in Franklin’s College of Arts and Sciences. “Many preprints don’t even get published. I really think it’s important for the public to understand that.
