In 2015, Europe faced the arrival of over 1.25 million refugees fleeing from war-affected countries. The public mainly learned about this issue through domestic media. Through the use of computerassisted content analysis, this study identifies the most dominant frames employed in the coverage of refugee and asylum issues between January 2015 and January 2016 in six Austrian newspapers (N = 10,606), particularly focusing on potential differences between quality and tabloid media, and on frame variations over time. The findings reveal that, apart from administrative aspects of coping with the arrivals, established narratives of security threat and economisation are most prominent. Humanitarianism frames and background information on the refugees' situation are provided to a lesser extent. During the most intense phases of the crisis, the framing patterns of tabloid and quality media become highly similar. Media coverage broadens to multiple prominent frames as issue salience sharply increases, and then 'crystallises' into a more narrow set. In sum, the results confirm a predominance of stereotyped interpretations of refugee and asylum issues, and thus persisting journalistic routines in both, tabloid and quality media, even in times of a major political and humanitarian crisis.

Why are COVID-19 conspiracy theories so prevalent? Particularly, why would some citizens ignore scientific evidence and common logic but, instead, be convinced that COVID-19 was a military experiment or spread by 5G signals? Why would they believe that Bill Gates had anything to do with it? In this contribution, we argue that populism is at the centre of these beliefs, as the complex nature of the COVID-19 pandemic makes it an ideal playground for populists' opposition to scientific and political elites. We use Structural Equation Models and panel survey data (n = 823) from the Austrian Corona Panel Project to test this argument. We demonstrate a negative correlation of populist attitudes with both trust in political and scientific institutions, which, in return, negatively relate to COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs. This results in an overall positive relationship of populist attitudes and conspiracy beliefs that is independent of political ideology. These findings have important implications for elite communication regarding virus mitigation.

Political communication has become one of the central arenas of innovation in the application of automated analysis approaches to ever-growing quantities of digitized texts. However, although researchers routinely and conveniently resort to certain forms of human coding to validate the results derived from automated procedures, in practice the actual "quality assurance" of such a "gold standard" often goes unchecked. Contemporary practices of validation via manual annotations are far from being acknowledged as best practices in the literature, and the reporting and interpretation of validation procedures differ greatly. We systematically assess the connection between the quality of human judgment in manual annotations and the relative performance evaluations of automated procedures against true standards by relying on large-scale Monte Carlo simulations. The results from the simulations confirm that there is a substantially greater risk of a researcher reaching an incorrect conclusion regarding the performance of automated procedures when the quality of manual annotations used for validation is not properly ensured. Our contribution should therefore be regarded as a call for the systematic application of high-quality manual validation materials in any political communication study, drawing on automated text analysis procedures.

The success of digital longforms in terms of readership and viral spread promotes an optimistic perspective on innovative web journalism with regard to the attention, engagement, and subsequent knowledge acquisition of citizens when consuming news. Since empirical evidence for such effects is scant, this experimental study focuses on visual aesthetics as a signature element of novel news formats that are designed to attract attention in a highly competitive media landscape. Specifically, it draws on the theoretical framework of user engagement and shows that the presence of visual aesthetics contributes to meaningful learning from the news by initiating positive attitudes towards the interface, which in turn leads to deeper involvement with the content. However, when the presence of visual aesthetics fails to affect interface evaluation, the opposite effect occurs. Surprisingly, these effects are not found to be contingent upon individual differences such as issue involvement or issue-specific prior knowledge. Overall, our results suggest that for news organizations, it is worth investing financial and personal resources in innovative news formats in order to support knowledge gain, although they need to be carefully designed as the first encounter with the interface decides about the subsequent engagement with and processing of the news.

(OA) is an evolving publication model that is heavily supported by politics and science organizations aiming to make scientific knowledge more accessible to a wider audience. Whether it will indeed alter scholarly communication, however, depends on researchers' underlying attitudes, motivations, and needs. Drawing on group discussions and interviews (n = 42), this study explores the perceptions, attitudes and behaviours of researchers towards OA publishing. We focus on researchers in the field of biomedical and health informatics located in different global regions and from different seniority levels. Overall, the results show that whilst most researchers support the idea of making scientific knowledge freely accessible to everyone, they are hesitant about actually living this practice by choosing OA journals to publish their own work. Article processing charges and quality issues are perceived as the main obstacles in this respect, revealing a two-sided evaluation of OA models, reflecting the different viewpoints of researchers as authors or readers. The results further highlight hitherto underexplored influencing factors regarding institutional frame conditions, located on the level of the scientific system, the publication service providers or the national/international OA policies.

Why do populist citizens oppose climate change? Thus far, data constraints limited the ability to test different theoretical mechanisms against each other. We argue that populist attitudes affect climate attitudes through two distinct channels, namely institutional trust and attitudes towards science. The former argument focuses on political institutions as the central actors in implementing climate policy. Individuals who distrust these institutions are more sceptical about climate change. The latter argument claims that populists deny climate change because they distrust the underlying climate science. According to this view, populists would view climate scientists as part of the self-serving elite that betrays the people. Utilising data from the Austrian National Election Study and structural equation modelling, we find strong support for the relationship of populism and climate attitudes via attitudes towards science and institutional trust. Populists systematically hold more negative attitudes towards science and political institutions, and consequently deny climate change.

Why are COVID-19 conspiracy theories so prevalent? Particularly, why would some citizens ignore scientific evidence and common logic but, instead, be convinced that COVID-19 was a military experiment or spread by 5G signals? Why would they believe that Bill Gates had anything to do with it? In this contribution, we argue that populism is at the centre of these beliefs, as the complex nature of the COVID-19 pandemic makes it an ideal playground for populists’ opposition to scientific and political elites. We use Structural Equation Models and panel survey data (n = 823) from the Austrian Corona Panel Project to test this argument. We demonstrate a negative correlation of populist attitudes with both trust in political and scientific institutions, which, in return, negatively relate to COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs. This results in an overall positive relationship of populist attitudes and conspiracy beliefs that is independent of political ideology. These findings have important implications for elite communication regarding virus mitigation.

It is considered important or even necessary for a continuous exchange of scientific information that all relevant stakeholders can access the inner-scientific communication. The traditional publication model, however, does not provide an inclusive flow of communication but rather favours researchers affiliated with resource-strong institutions, oftentimes located in the Global North. Hence, there are increased efforts to establish an alternative, open access (OA) publication model. Since such a model can only be successful if scientists themselves support and use it, this paper presents a two-tier study examining the factors that might shape scientists’ decision (not) to choose an OA option for disseminating their own work. Based on (semi-)standardized surveys of scientific organizations and individual researchers in the field of biomedical and health informatics, it provides an overview of individual and institutional frame conditions that influence the dissemination and reception of scientific knowledge. In order to account for regional differences, it draws on a global sample, comprising respondents from Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Europe, Latin America, Middle East and North America. Overall, the findings provide a heterogeneous picture of how OA is perceived and practiced. Respondents appreciate the convenient way to access OA articles as readers and the opportunity to reach broader (non-academic) audiences as authors. However, due to high publication fees and concerns regarding quality and reputation, a positive attitude towards OA does not necessarily translate into willingness to choose this publication model. Especially researchers from low-income countries benefit from a barrier-free communication mainly in their role as readers and much less in their role as authors of scientific information. This is also evident at the institutional level, as OA policies or financial support through funding bodies are most prevalent in Europe and North America. These findings call for more attention to inner-scientific communication as part of (science) communication research.