CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 59Academic Publishing and Open AccessEducation, Healthcare and Sociology ResearchEducational Strategies and Epistemologies

Disclose your flaws! Admission positively affects the perceived trustworthiness of an expert science blogger

Hendriks, Friederike, Kienhues, Dorothe, Bromme, Rainer·2016·Studies in Communication Sciences
DOI 10.1016/j.scoms.2016.10.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scoms.2016.10.003

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Communicating uncertainty can promote trust in science.

    “even though communicating uncertainty can promote trust in science 131-133 (though see ref. 134 )”

    From Predictors and consequences of intellectual humility (2022) · cites this paper as [133]

  • News media typically avoid reporting areas of uncertainty or ambiguity in favour of definitive stories.

    “News media also typically avoid reporting areas of uncertainty or ambiguity in favour of definitive stories”

    From Predictors and consequences of intellectual humility (2022) · cites this paper as [133]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R.
Affiliations
University of Münster (DE)
Corresponding author
Hendriks, Friederike
ORCID
Venue
Studies in Communication Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
124-131
ISSN
1424-4896 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.scoms.2016.10.003
OpenAlex
W2556331089
Cited by
59
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI
3.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Studies in Communication Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • HOPE (Hauptbibliothek Open Publishing Environment) (University of Zurich) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Education, Healthcare and Sociology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
Keywords
epistemic trustworthiness, science blogging, expert credibility, critique, integrity, benevolence, science communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review