Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 363

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How scientists view the public, the media and the political process

Besley, John C., Nisbet, Matthew·2013·Public Understanding of Science

Abstract

We review past studies on how scientists view the public, the goals of communication, the performance and impacts of the media, and the role of the public in policy decision-making. We add to these past findings by analyzing two recent large-scale surveys of scientists in the UK and US. These analyses show that scientists believe the public is uninformed about science and therefore prone to errors in judgment and policy preferences. Scientists are critical of media coverage generally, yet they also tend to rate favorably their own experience dealing with journalists, believing that such interactions are important both for promoting science literacy and for career advancement. Scientists believe strongly that they should have a role in public debates and view policy-makers as the most important group with which to engage. Few scientists view their role as an enabler of direct public participation in decision-making through formats such as deliberative meetings, and do not believe there are personal benefits for investing in these activities. Implications for future research are discussed, in particular the need to examine how ideology and selective information sources shape scientists’ views.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0963662511418743

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 31 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. 10.1177/0963662507060587 · doi:10.1177/0963662507060587
  2. 10.1093/ijpor/8.2.113 · doi:10.1093/ijpor/8.2.113
  3. 10.1177/0963662506065332 · doi:10.1177/0963662506065332
  4. 10.1097/HP.0b013e3181ad7eec · doi:10.1097/hp.0b013e3181ad7eec
  5. 10.1177/030631279402400104 · doi:10.1177/030631279402400104
  6. 10.1080/02691720050199261 · doi:10.1080/02691720050199261
  7. 10.1088/0963-6625/6/3/006 · doi:10.1088/0963-6625/6/3/006
  8. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2009) Public praises science; scientists fault public, media. July 9. Available at: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/528.pdf

Cited by

See all 363

Metadata

Authors
Besley, J. C., & Nisbet, M.
Venue
Public Understanding of Science
Published
2011-08-30
Volume
22
Issue
6
Pages
644-659
ISSN
  • 0963-6625 (ISSN-L)
  • 1361-6609
OpenAlex
W2152261853
Cited by
363
References
31
FWCI
93.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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: How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0963662511418743
The paper
Besley, J. C., & Nisbet, M. (2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511418743

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.