Abstract

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

Highlights

  • This study is about “external effects” which result from the selection of scientific news by individual journalists worldwide

  • The number of Social Impact Papers (SIPs) and journals with SIPs has changed over the years in our study period, showing a strong increase from 2014–2015 to 2015–2016 with a doubling of both numbers and again from 2015–2016 to 2016–2017 (Fig 3)

  • We assume that this is due to changes in the source base that Altmetric uses to calculate the mainstream media score (MSM) score, but since Altmetric does not publish information concerning the development of their sources, we cannot test this assumption

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This study is about “external effects” which result from the selection of scientific news by individual journalists worldwide. We use this term in the sense of the “model of sociological explanation” (“Modell der soziologischen Erklarung”) by German sociologist Hartmut Esser [1]. According to this model, an “external effect” is an unintended result of decisions by a multitude of individual actors, which becomes visible as a social structure by way of aggregation. Our interest lies in the structures of how scientific journals influence journalism and in the structure of the social dissemination of research results.

Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.