Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists’ use and perception of preprints

Abstract

This qualitative study explores how and why journalists use preprints—unreviewed research papers—in their reporting. Through thematic analysis of interviews conducted with 19 health and science journalists in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, it applies a theoretical framework that conceptualizes COVID-19 preprint research as a form of post-normal science, characterized by high scientific uncertainty and societal relevance, urgent need for political decision-making, and value-related policy considerations. Findings suggest that journalists approach the decision to cover preprints as a careful calculation, in which the potential public benefits and the ease of access preprints provided were weighed against risks of spreading misinformation. Journalists described viewing unreviewed studies with extra skepticism and relied on diverse strategies to find, vet, and report on them. Some of these strategies represent standard science journalism, while others, such as labeling unreviewed studies as preprints, mark a departure from the norm. However, journalists also reported barriers to covering preprints, as many felt they lacked the expertise or the time required to fully understand or vet the research. The findings suggest that coverage of preprints is likely to continue post-pandemic, with important implications for scientists, journalists, and the publics who read their work.

Changes in health communication in the age of COVID-19: A study on the dissemination of preprints to the public

“…This paper finds that the epidemic has changed this model, resulting in more scientific discoveries being disseminated into the public domain through preprinted papers. Several previous studies have shown that journalists have relied more on preprint as a source of news coverage due to the immediacy and ease of accessibility ( 33 , 35 ). It is believed that journalists and the media are “knowledge brokers” who bridge the gap between science and society ( 53 , 54 ).…”

“…In addition, COVID-19 prompts the dissemination of preprints beyond the academic community to the wider public ( 13 ). Many mainstream journalists have to report on preprints due to the pandemic, which has even become a frequent practice ( 33 – 35 ). While the role of preprints was well-recognized within the academic community, their dissemination to the public raised concerns.…”

“…First, a qualitative approach focuses primarily on experience, summarizing the news reporting practices of preprints by journalists. They explain why preprint coverage has become so extensive and the problems associated with the reporting practice ( 33 , 35 , 40 ).…”

Describing the landscape of medical education preprints on medRxiv

“…Additionally, preprints have become integrated into traditional media practices, with many journalists actively seeking and reporting on preprints as part of their normal practice. 15 Preprints are also adding to the medical education discourse by eventually becoming published articles in a variety of journals, including those specific to medical education (i.e., in the MEJ-24). The practice of preprints subsequently being published in academic journals is not unique to medical education.…”

Academic explanatory journalism and emerging COVID-19 science: how social media accounts amplify The Conversation’s preprint coverage

“…However, several flawed COVID-19-related preprints were covered widely by the media (see Majumder and Mandl, 2020 ; van Schalkwyk et al, 2020 ), adding to a growing quantity of misinformation ( World Health Organisation, 2020 ). The risk that preprint media coverage could mislead audiences is recognised by journalists ( Fleerackers et al, 2022 ); however, journalists are not the only actors shaping public discourse around contingent COVID-19 research. Social media accounts also share, contextualise and amplify scientific findings, including media stories citing preprint research, by sharing hyperlinks with friends and followers.…”