The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Science communication reconsidered
Open accessAbstract
As new media proliferate and the public's trust and engagement in science are influenced by industry involvement in academic research, an interdisciplinary workshop provides some recommendations to enhance science communication.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Jacobs, D. F., Dalgleish, H. J., & Nelson, C. D. (2013) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.12020 · Cited by 183
Science and the sources of hype
Caulfield, T., & Condit, C. (2012) · Public Health Genomics · doi:10.1159/000336533 · Cited by 152
Self-citationMetcalfe, J. (2019) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662518821022 · Cited by 138
Brownell, S. E., Price, J. V., & Steinman, L. (2013) · Advances in Physiology Education · doi:10.1152/advan.00138.2012 · Cited by 135
Considerations for effective science communication
Cooke, S. J., Gallagher, A. J., Sopinka, N. M., Nguyen, V. M., Skubel, R. A., Hammerschlag, N., Boon, S., Young, N., & Danylchuk, A. J. (2017) · FACETS · doi:10.1139/facets-2016-0055 · Cited by 134
Metadata
- Authors
- Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., Geller, G., Gupta, A., Hampel, J., Hyde-Lay, R., Jandciu, E. W., Jones, S. A., Kolopack, P., Lane, S., Lougheed, T., Nerlich, B., Ogbogu, U., O'Riordan, K., Ouellette, C., Spear, M., Strauss, S., Thavaratnam, T., Willemse, L., & Caulfield, T.
- Venue
- Nature Biotechnology
- Published
- 2009-06
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 514-518
- ISSN
- 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
- 1087-0156
- 1546-1696
- OpenAlex
- W1965638471
- Cited by
- 477
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 38.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Science communication reconsidered. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/nbt0609-514
- The paper
- Bubela, T., Nisbet, M. C., Borchelt, R., Brunger, F., Critchley, C., Einsiedel, E., Geller, G., Gupta, A., Hampel, J., Hyde-Lay, R., Jandciu, E. W., Jones, S. A., Kolopack, P., Lane, S., Lougheed, T., Nerlich, B., Ogbogu, U., O'Riordan, K., Ouellette, C., . . . Caulfield, T. (2009). Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
