The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Science literacy in the twenty-first century: informed trust and the competent outsider
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
Figures
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“It acknowledges the epistemic dependence of non-experts, which refers to their reliance on trusted intermediaries because they cannot directly verify the accuracy of scientific claims [6].”
From When the source is a bot: How people adapt their evaluation strategies to assess AI-generated content (2026) · cites this paper as [6]
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
Cites
Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry
Longino, H. E. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9780691209753 · Cited by 3,092
High-Stakes Testing and Curricular Control: A Qualitative Metasynthesis
Au, W. (2007) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x07306523 · Cited by 1,250 · cited 1×
“The overwhelming consequence is an impoverished form of education marked by a combination of ‘contracting curricular content, fragmentation of the structure of knowledge, and increasing teacher-centered pedagogy in response to high stakes testing’ (Au, 2007) (p. 263).”
Real Science: What it Is and What it Means
Ziman, J. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511541391 · Cited by 760
Reconceptualizing nature‐of‐science education in the age of social media
Höttecke, D., & Allchin, D. (2020) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21575 · Cited by 303 · cited 2×
“And while voices of misinformation have always existed, the internet and social media have provided a much louder megaphone and, more importantly, the means to avoid traditional media gatekeepers such as science journalists (Höttecke & Allchin, 2020).”
Self-citationStudents’ Civic Online Reasoning: A National Portrait
Breakstone, J., Smith, M., Wineburg, S., Rapaport, A., Carle, J., Garland, M., & Saavedra, A. (2021) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x211017495 · Cited by 267 · cited 3×
“In addition, research shows that they are poor at evaluating the credibility of such sources (Breakstone et al., 2021b).”
Allchin, D. (2001) · Perspectives on Science · doi:10.1162/10636140152947786 · Cited by 97
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 89
- 10.1002/sce.21774 · DOI
- Alberts, B. (2022). Why trust science. In B. Alberts, R. Heald, K. Hopkin, A. Johnson, D. Morgan, K. Roberts, P. Walter, & R. Heald (Eds.), Essential cell biology (Sixth Edition). New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Available from https://digital.wwnorton.com/ecb6
- Allchin, D. (2008a). Naturalizing as an error-type in biology. Filosofia e História da Biologia, 3, 95–117.
- 10.1662/0002-7685(2008)70[389:ftp]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- Allchin, D. (2009). American Biology Teacher, 71, 116–119.
- 10.1002/sce.21019 · DOI
- 10.1525/abt.2019.81.1.61 · DOI
- 10.1002/sce.21571 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11191-021-00257-4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/sce.21111 · DOI
- 10.1080/0047231X.2023.2292409 · DOI
- 10.4324/9780203241219 · DOI
- 10.1080/09500690802380695 · DOI
- 10.1080/03050069828216 · DOI
- 10.1080/02691728.2022.2146469 · DOI
- Banilower, E. R., Sean Smith, P., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. M., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education.
- Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., & Hayes, M. L. (2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Horizon Research, Inc.
- 10.1007/s11422-019-09962-7 · DOI
- 10.37016/mr-2020-56 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226829845.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/MSPEC.2013.6587189 · DOI
- Cohen, I. B. (1952). The education of the public in science. Impact of Science on Society, 3, 67–101.
- Crombie, A. C. (1994). Styles of scientific thinking in the European tradition: The history of argument and explanation especially in the mathematical and biomedical sciences and arts. Duckworth.
- 10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L · DOI
- 10.1037/10903-000 · DOI
- Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. The MacMillan Company.
- 10.1002/sce.20414 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.4159/harvard.9780674283596.c4 · DOI
- Gieryn, T. (1999). The cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. University of Chiacgo Press.
- 10.1177/00139165221129539 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00093.x · DOI · Paper page
- Hamilton, A., Hattie, J., & Wiliam, D. (2023). Making room for impact. Corwin.
- 10.2307/2026523 · DOI · Paper page
- Harlen, W. E. (Ed.) (2010). Principles and big ideas of science education. Hatfield, Herts: Association for Science Education.
- Harré, R. (1986). Varieties of realism: A rationale for the natural sciences. Basil Blackwell.
- Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Houghton Mifflin.
- 10.1126/science.adi0333 · DOI
- 10.2304/eerj.2007.6.2.109 · DOI
- IPCC. (2021). The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press.
- 10.1002/9781119165811.ch27 · DOI
- 10.1002/sce.21251 · DOI
- 10.1177/1529100620946707 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.31234/osf.io/x8ejt · DOI
- Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
- Layton, D. (1973). Science for the people: The origins of the school science curriculum in England. Allen and Unwin.
- 10.1002/sce.21815 · DOI
- Lynch, M. P. (2016). The internet of US: Knowing more and understanding less in the age of big data. WW Norton & Company.
- Matyas, M. L., & Haley-Oliphant, A. E. (1997). Women life scientists: Past, present, and future: Connecting role models to the classroom curriculum. American Physiological Society.
- 10.7551/mitpress/11483.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.4159/9780674239951 · DOI
- Merton, R. K.1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
- 10.1007/978-1-4684-6735-2 · DOI
- Michaels, D. (2020). The triumph of doubt: Dark money and the science of deception. Oxford University Press.
- 10.1080/09500690600718344 · DOI
- Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. 1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. King's College.
- National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching in grades K-8. Washington DC: National Research Council.
- National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. N. A. Press.
- Nestle, M. (2018). Unsavory truth. Basic Books.
- Nichols, T. (2017). The death of expertise: The campaign against established knowledge and Why it matters. Oxford University Press.
- 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199704)81:2<239::AID-SCE7>3.0.CO;2-G · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511609664.016 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_40 · DOI
- Oakeshott, M. (1965). Learning and teaching. In T. Fuller (Ed.), The voice of liberal learning: Michael oakshott on education (pp. 43–62). Yale University Press.
- 10.1088/0031-9120/37/2/307 · DOI
- Oreskes, N. (2019). Why trust science? Princeton University Press.
- Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt. Bloomsbury Press.
- 10.23943/princeton/9780691196329.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1080/0950069032000032199 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11165-016-9595-x · DOI
- Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates US. Penguin.
- 10.1002/sce.21114 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/03057267.2014.881626 · DOI
- Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
- Roberts, D. A. (2011). Competing visions of scientific literacy: Influence of a science curriculum policy image. In C. J. Linder, L. Ostman, D. A. Roberts, P. O. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. Mackinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 11–27). Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
- Ronan, C. A. (1982). Science: Its history and development among the world's cultures. Facts on File.
- 10.1002/sce.10113 · DOI
- Rudolph, J. (2022). Why We teach science (and Why We should). Oxford University Press.
- Rudolph, J. L. (2019). How We teach science-what′ s changed, and Why It matters. Harvard University Press.
- Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for All Americans: A project 2061 report. AAAS.
- Shapin, S. (1989). The invisible technician. American Scientist, 77, 554–563.
- 10.2307/1884852 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/978-3-319-66659-4_4 · DOI
- Teitelbaum, M. (2007, Sept 17-18, 2007). Do We need more scientists and engineers? The National Value of Science Education, University of York.
- Teresi, D. (2010). Lost discoveries: The ancient roots of modern science–from the baby. Simon and Schuster.
- Union of Concerned Scientists. (2007). Smoke, mirrors & hot air: How ExxonMobil uses big tobacco's tactics to manufacture uncertainty on climate science. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/smoke-mirrors-hot-air.
- van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum. New York: Longman.
- 10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32 · DOI · Paper page
- Ziman, J. (1968). Public knowledge: The social dimension of science. Cambridge University Press.
- 10.2505/4/tst20_087_05_24 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dabran-Zivan, S., Klein-Avraham, I., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2026) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0345300 · Cited by 6
Reconceptualizing Epistemic Dependence for Future Scientific Literacy: A Lesson from the LK-99 Case
Lee, G., & Zhai, X. (2025) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-025-10247-z · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Osborne, J., & Allchin, D.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University
- Minnesota Center for the Philosophy of Science, University of Minnesota
- Venue
- International Journal of Science Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2024-04-09
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 15-16
- Pages
- 2134-2155
- ISSN
- 0950-0693
- 1464-5289
- Cited by
- 134
- References
- 6
- Language
- en
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
