Correlations between the selection of topics by news media and scientific journals

PLoS One. 2023 Jan 25;18(1):e0280016. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280016. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

The aim of this study is to reveal a robust correlation between the amount of attention international journalism devotes to scientific papers and the amount of attention scientific journals devote to the respective topics. Using a Mainstream-Media-Score (MSM) ≥ 100 (which we regard as an indicator for news media attention) from the altmetrics provider Altmetric, we link 983 research articles with 185,166 thematically similar articles from the PubMed database (which we use to operationalize attention from scientific journals). The method we use is to test whether there is a concomitant increase in scientific attention after a research article has received popular media coverage. To do so, we compare the quotient of the number of thematically similar articles published in scientific journals during the period before and after the publication of an MSM ≥ 100 article. Our main result shows that in 59 percent of cases, more thematically similar articles were published in scientific journals after a scientific paper received noteworthy news media coverage than before (p < 0.01). In this context, we neither found significant differences between various types of scientific journal (p = 0.3) nor between scientific papers that were originally published in renowned opinion-leading journals or in less renowned, non-opinion-leading journals (p = 0.1). Our findings indicate a robust correlation between the choice of topics in the mass media and in research. However, our study cannot clarify whether this correlation occurs because researchers and/or scientific journals are oriented towards public relevance (publicity effect) or whether the correlation is due to the parallelism of relevance attributions in quality journalism and research (earmark hypothesis). We infer that topics of social relevance are (more) likely to be picked up by popular media as well as by scientific journals. Altogether, our study contributes new empirical findings to the relationship between topic selection in journalism and in research.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Bibliometrics
  • Databases, Factual
  • Journal Impact Factor
  • Mass Media
  • Periodicals as Topic*
  • Social Media*

Associated data

  • figshare/10.6084/m9.figshare.20101811

Grants and funding

This work was supported by grant 411038189 from the German Research Foundation (DFG), Bonn within the framework program “Medializing brain diseases: interactions between research and mass media” (https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/411038189?language=en) and by grant 94838 from the Volkswagen Foundation within the framework program “Entwicklung von Methoden und Tools für eine datengestützte Wissenschaftskommunikation” [“Development of methods and tools for data-based science communication”, Hannover (https://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/). The author who received both awards was M. L. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There was no additional external funding received for this study. We acknowledge support by the Open Access Publication Fund of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.