Journals give more publicity to ‘weak science’

[HuckleB]

Analysis of seven prominent medical journals finds randomised controlled trials are far less likely to receive a press release than weaker observational studies
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/cn/news/journals-give-more-publicity-weak-science

"cientists often bemoan journalists’ shoddy reporting of research findings. The writer and physician Ben Goldacre has even made a career dissecting shaky scientific claims that appear in British newspapers.

But a new study suggests that scientifically illiterate hacks in desperate need of a story might be only partly to blame. It found that journals themselves are more likely to issue press releases publicising the findings of what may be deemed weaker studies than larger, more scientifically significant trials.

Looking at seven of the world’s most prestigious medical journals, researchers found that half of published observational studies were the subject of a press release, compared with just 17 per cent of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), despite the latter being seen as the only way to reliably test a hypothesis.

There was a similar pattern when looking at the most reliable type of research: RCTs with large numbers of participants. These were given a press release just 14 per cent of the time, compared with 38 per cent of those with smaller samples and observational trials.

..."

[tblue37]

1. I'm guessing that they assume the public will ignore info from scientifically rigorous studies

as "too hard" to understand.

Or perhaps less rigorous studies are being done in areas that are of general public interest.

Science needs publc funding, so provoking public interest is PR. Probably the press releases are aimed at what they think the public will find interesting and fairly easy to understand.

[HuckleB]

3. Possibly, but I wonder if there are other drivers.

The research community is interesting. There really should be a fantastic TV show that covers its cultural layers. It would be incredible. I wonder about the possibility that scientists who do less rigorous work are more focused on publicity than their peers, for example.

[eppur_se_muova]

2. Details are boring. Quick and easy reading sells copy. nt

[hunter]

4. Hype pays the bills in modern society.

Even for researchers, most especially when they are supported by big money such as pharmaceutical companies or universities managed as "businesses."

Big money poisons everything it touches.

[drm604]

5. It strikes me that weaker studies are more likely to have more interesting (though wrong) findings.

Well done randomized controlled trials are less likely to find things that stray from currently accepted science (simply because currently accepted science is more likely to be correct) and therefore attract less journalistic attention.

Weaker studies are more likely to produce wrong, but more provocative, results, and thus attract more journalistic attention.