The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators
Open accessAbstract
The present article presents an up-to-date account of the current media relations of scientists, based on a comprehensive analysis of relevant surveys. The evidence suggests that most scientists consider visibility in the media important and responding to journalists a professional duty—an attitude that is reinforced by universities and other science organizations. Scientific communities continue to regulate media contacts with their members by certain norms that compete with the motivating and regulating influences of public information departments. Most scientists assume a two-arena model with a gap between the arenas of internal scientific and public communication. They want to meet the public in the public arena, not in the arena of internal scientific communication. Despite obvious changes in science and in the media system, the orientations of scientists toward the media, as well as the patterns of interaction with journalists, have their roots in the early 1980s. Although there is more influence on public communication from the science organizations and more emphasis on strategic considerations today, the available data do not indicate abrupt changes in communication practices or in the relevant beliefs and attitudes of scientists in the past 30 y. Changes in the science–media interface may be expected from the ongoing structural transformation of the public communication system. However, as yet, there is little evidence of an erosion of the dominant orientation toward the public and public communication within the younger generation of scientists.
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
The sciences of science communication
Fischhoff, B. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1213273110 · Cited by 362
Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement
Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148867 · Cited by 326
Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology
(2014) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203483794 · Cited by 269
An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks
Jasny, L., Waggle, J., & Fisher, D. R. (2015) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2666 · Cited by 227
Lay summaries needed to enhance science communication
Kuehne, L. M., & Olden, J. D. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1500882112 · Cited by 104
Metadata
- Authors
- Peters, H. P.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2013-08-12
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- supplement_3
- Pages
- 14102-14109
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2001481864
- Cited by
- 351
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 47.72
- 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: Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1212745110
- The paper
- Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212745110
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.