Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Publishing, Perishing, and the Infodemic of Fake Science

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Integrity of Scientific Research

Abstract

The spread of misinformation and disinformation related to science and technology has impeded public and policy efforts to mitigate threats such as COVID-19 and anthropogenic climate change. In the digital age, such so-called fake science can propagate faster and capture the public imagination to a greater extent than accurate science. Therefore, ensuring the most reliable science reaches and is accepted by audiences now entails understanding the origins of fake science so that effective measures can be operationalized to recognize misinformation and inhibit its spread. In this chapter, we review the potential weaknesses of science publishing and assessment as an origin of misinformation; the interplay between science, the media, and society; and the limitations of literacy as an inoculation against misinformation; and we offer guidance on the most effective ways to frame science to engage non-expert audiences. We conclude by offering avenues for future science communication research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Feezell JT, Wagner JK, Conroy M (2020) Exploring the effects of algorithm-driven news sources on political behavior and polarization. Comput Hum Behav 106626

    Google Scholar 

  2. Walter N, Ball-Rokeach SJ, Xu Y, Broad GM (2018) Communication ecologies: analyzing adoption of false beliefs in an information-rich environment. Sci Commun 40(5):650–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Goode L (2009) Social news, citizen journalism and democracy. New Media Soc 11(8):1287–1305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dunwoody S (2021) Science journalism: prospects in the digital age. In: Bucchi M, Trench B (eds) Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lahouati M, De Coucy A, Sarlangue J, Cazanave C (2020, July 15) Spread of vaccine hesitancy in France: What about YouTubeTM? Vaccine [Internet]. [cited 2020 Jul 20]. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X20309026

  6. Maertens R, Anseel F, van der Linden S (2020) Combatting climate change misinformation: evidence for longevity of inoculation and consensus messaging effects. J Environ Psychol 70:101455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hmielowski JD, Kirkpatrick AW, Boyd AD (2020) Understanding public support for smart meters: media attention, misperceptions, and knowledge. J Risk Res:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  8. Greenspan RL, Loftus EF (2021) Pandemics and infodemics: research on the effects of misinformation on memory. Hum Behav Emerg Technol 3(1):8–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chu H, Yuan S, Liu S (2021) Call them COVIDiots: exploring the effects of aggressive communication style and psychological distance in the communication of COVID-19. Public Underst Sci 30:240–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662521989191

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. McIntyre L (2018) Post-truth [Internet]. MIT Press; [cited 2021 Apr 20]. 240 p. The MIT Press essential knowledge series. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/post-truth

  11. Funk C, Hefferon M, Kennedy B, Johnson C (2019) Trust and mistrust in Americans’ views of scientific experts [Internet]. Pew Research Center Science & Society. [cited 2019 Dec 29]. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/

  12. Gauchat G (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. Am Sociol Rev 77(2):167–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Howell EL, Wirz CD, Scheufele DA, Brossard D, Xenos MA (2020) Deference and decision-making in science and society: how deference to scientific authority goes beyond confidence in science and scientists to become authoritarianism. Public Underst Sci 29(8):800–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520962741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tennant JP, Ross-Hellauer T (2020) The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 5(1):6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Carver J, VanVoorhis J, Basili V. Understanding the impact of assumptions on experimental validity. In: Proceedings 2004 international symposium on empirical software engineering, 2004 ISESE ’04. 2004. pp 251–60

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bode L, Vraga EK, Tully M (2020) Correcting misperceptions about genetically modified food on social media: examining the impact of experts, social media heuristics, and the gateway belief model. Sci Commun 43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020981375

  17. Grimes DR, Bauch CT, Ioannidis JPA (2018) Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure. R Soc Open Sci 5(1):171511

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Coggburn JD, Neely SR (2015) Publish or perish? Examining academic tenure standards in public affairs and administration programs. J Public Aff Educ 21(2):199–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yan J, MacDonald A, Baisi L-P, Evaniew N, Bhandari M, Ghert M (2016) Retractions in orthopaedic research: a systematic review. Bone Jt Res 5(6):263–268

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Smaldino PE, McElreath R (2016) The natural selection of bad science. R Soc Open Sci 3(9):160384

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Shrout PE, Rodgers JL (2018) Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annu Rev Psychol 69(1):487–510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hopf H, Krief A, Mehta G, Matlin SA (2019) Fake science and the knowledge crisis: ignorance can be fatal. R Soc Open Sci 6(5):190161

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Clemons M, de Costa e Silva M, Joy AA, Cobey KD, Mazzarello S, Stober C et al (2017) Predatory invitations from journals: more than just a nuisance? Oncologist 22(2):236–240

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Cobey KD, Lalu MM, Skidmore B, Ahmadzai N, Grudniewicz A, Moher D (2018) What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. F1000Research [Internet] 7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6092896/

  25. Forero DA, Oermann MH, Manca A, Deriu F, Mendieta-Zerón H, Dadkhah M et al (2018) Negative effects of “predatory” journals on global health research. Ann Glob Health 84(4):584–589

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Beall J (2012) Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nat News 489(7415):179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Vervoort D, Ma X, Shrime MG (2020) Money down the drain: predatory publishing in the COVID-19 era. Can J Public Health 111(5):665–666

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Wakefield A, Murch S, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson D, Malik M et al (1998) RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 351(9103):637–641

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bowes J (2016) Measles, misinformation, and risk: personal belief exemptions and the MMR vaccine. J Law Biosci 3(3):718–725

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hallman WK (2017) What the public thinks and knows about science—and why it matters. In: Jamieson KH, Kahan DM, Scheufele D (eds) The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 61–72

    Google Scholar 

  31. National Science Board (2018) Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding [Internet]. National Science Board (Science & Engineering Indicators 2018). https://nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/science-and-technology-public-attitudes-and-understanding/highlights

  32. Sundstrom B (2016) Mothers “google it up:” extending communication channel behavior in diffusion of innovations theory. Health Commun 31(1):91–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rice RE (2017) Intermediality and the diffusion of innovations. Hum Commun Res 43(4):531–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. McCombs M (2018) Agenda-setting. In: The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology [Internet]. American Cancer Society, pp 1–2. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosa025.pub2

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gentzkow MA, Shapiro JM (2004) Media, education and anti-Americanism in the Muslim world. J Econ Perspect 18(3):117–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Garrett RK, Weeks BE, Neo RL (2016) Driving a wedge between evidence and beliefs: how online ideological news exposure promotes political misperceptions. J Comput-Mediat Commun 21(5):331–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Stempel C, Hargrove T, Stempel GH (2007) Media use, social structure, and belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Journal Mass Commun Q 84(2):353–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Shearer E, Mitchell A (2021) News use across social media platforms in 2020 [Internet]. Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project. [cited 2021 Apr 20]. https://www.journalism.org/2021/01/12/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-in-2020/

  39. Coddington M, Molyneux L, Lawrence RG (2014) Fact checking the campaign: how political reporters use twitter to set the record straight (or not). Int J Press 19(4):391–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. The New York Times (2021) Corrections [Internet]. The New York Times. [cited 2021 Apr 27]. https://www.nytimes.com/section/corrections

  41. Hasher L, Goldstein D, Toppino T (1977) Frequency and the conference of referential validity. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 16(1):107–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pennycook G, Cannon TD, Rand DG (2018) Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. J Exp Psychol Gen 147(12):1865–1880

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Thorson E (2016) Belief echoes: the persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Polit Commun 33(3):460–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Skurnik I, Yoon C, Park DC, Schwarz N (2005) How warnings about false claims become recommendations. J Consum Res 31(4):713–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Jamieson KH, Albarracín D (2020 Apr) The relation between media consumption and misinformation at the outset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the US. Harv Kennedy Sch Misinformation Rev [Internet] 1(3) https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/the-relation-between-media-consumption-and-misinformation-at-the-outset-of-the-sars-cov-2-pandemic-in-the-us/

  46. Iyengar S, Massey DS (2019) Scientific communication in a post-truth society. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116(16):7656–7661

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bond S. Facebook (2021) Widens ban on COVID-19 vaccine misinformation in push to boost confidence [Internet]. NPR.org. [cited 2021 Apr 28]. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/08/965390755/facebook-widens-ban-on-covid-19-vaccine-misinformation-in-push-to-boost-confiden

  48. Livingstone S (2004) Media literacy and the challenge of new information and communication technologies. Commun Rev 7(1):3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Barthel M, Mitchell A, Holcomb J (2016) Many Americans believe fake news is sowing confusion [Internet]. Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project. [cited 2021 Apr 20]. https://www.journalism.org/2016/12/15/many-americans-believe-fake-news-is-sowing-confusion/

  50. Feinstein N (2011) Salvaging science literacy. Sci Educ 95(1):168–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. The Royal Society (1985) The public understanding of science [Internet]. London, The Royal Society, p 46. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/1985/10700.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bucchi M (2008) Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. In: Bucchi M, Trench B (eds) Handbook of public communication of science and technology [Internet], 1st edn. Routledge, London, UK, pp 71–90. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9780203928240

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Miller S (2001) Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Underst Sci 10(1):115–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Wynne B (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Underst Sci 1(3):281–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Takahashi B, Tandoc EC (2016) Media sources, credibility, and perceptions of science: Learning about how people learn about science. Public Underst Sci 25(6):674–690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kirkpatrick AW (2021) The spread of fake science: lexical concreteness, proximity, misinformation sharing, and the moderating role of subjective knowledge. Public Underst Sci 30(1):55–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Koetke J, Schumann K, Porter T (2021) Intellectual humility predicts scrutiny of COVID-19 misinformation. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 13:277–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 30(2):251–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Science and Technology [Internet]. (2000) London, UK: UK Parliament. [cited 2020 Feb 24]. Report No.: 3. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801.htm

  60. Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science – hitting the notes, but missing the music? Public Health Genomics 9(3):211–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Miller JD (2004) Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: what we know and what we need to know. Public Underst Sci 13(3):273–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Einsiedel EF (2014) Publics and their participation in science and technology: Changing roles, blurring boundaries. In: Bucchi M, Trench B (eds) Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology [Internet], 2nd edn. Routledge, pp 125–139. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9780203483794

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hetland P (2016) Models in science communication policy. Nord J Sci Technol Stud 2(2):5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wilkinson C, Weitkamp E (2016) Creative research communication: theory and practice. Manchester University Press, Manchester, 347 p

    Google Scholar 

  65. US National Center for Health Statistics, editor (2012) Healthy People 2010: final review. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics; 1 p. (DHHS publication)

    Google Scholar 

  66. Tattersall A (2018) New research must be better reported, the future of society depends on it [Internet]. The Conversation. [cited 2021 Apr 21]. http://theconversation.com/new-research-must-be-better-reported-the-future-of-society-depends-on-it-87407

  67. Chen M, Bell RA (2022) A meta-analysis of the impact of point of view on narrative processing and persuasion in health messaging. Psychol Health 37(5):545–562

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Goldstein CM, Murray EJ, Beard J, Schnoes AM, Wang ML (2020) Science communication in the age of misinformation. Ann Behav Med 54(12):985–990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Epstein S (1994) Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol 49(8):709–724

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Slater MD, Rouner D (2002) Entertainment—education and elaboration likelihood: understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Commun Theory 12(2):173–191

    Google Scholar 

  71. Duchsherer A, Jason M, Platt CA, Majdik ZP (2020) Immunized against science: narrative community building among vaccine refusing/hesitant parents. Public Underst Sci 29(4):419–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Houston TK, Allison JJ, Sussman M, Horn W, Holt CL, Trobaugh J et al (2011) Culturally appropriate storytelling to improve blood pressure. Ann Intern Med 154(2):77–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Balint KE, Das E, Stel G, Hoppener M (2021) Can a funny story about tooth brushing decrease plaque scores in children? A longitudinal field experiment. Health Commun 37(7):802–812

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Trope Y, Liberman N (2011) Construal level theory. In: Lange PAMV, Kruglanski AW, Higgins ET (eds) Handbook of theories of social psychology: collection: Volumes 1 & 2. SAGE, London, pp 118–134

    Google Scholar 

  75. Gupta N, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ (2012) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: a review. Public Underst Sci 21(7):782–795

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Drummond C, Fischhoff B (2020) Emotion and judgments of scientific research. Public Underst Sci 00(0):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  77. Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) From enabling technology to applications: the evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 20(3):385–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Edward R. Murrow College of Communication, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

    Alex W. Kirkpatrick

  2. Info-Tech, London, ON, Canada

    Thomas E. Randall

Authors
  1. Alex W. Kirkpatrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas E. Randall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alex W. Kirkpatrick .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital das Clinicas, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Joel Faintuch

  2. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Salomão Faintuch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kirkpatrick, A.W., Randall, T.E. (2022). Publishing, Perishing, and the Infodemic of Fake Science. In: Faintuch, J., Faintuch, S. (eds) Integrity of Scientific Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-99679-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-99680-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation