Search

An examination of how Trump's false claims of 2020 voter fraud have spilled over onto the 2022 elections.

Supplemental material, sj-docx-8-hpq-10.1177_13591053221082770 for Religious affiliation and philosophical and moral beliefs about vaccines: A longitudinal study by Ozan Kuru, Man-pui Sally Chan, Hang Lu, Dominik Andrzej Stecula, Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Dolores Albarrac��n in Journal of Health Psychology

Supplemental material, sj-docx-8-hpq-10.1177_13591053221082770 for Religious affiliation and philosophical and moral beliefs about vaccines: A longitudinal study by Ozan Kuru, Man-pui Sally Chan, Hang Lu, Dominik Andrzej Stecula, Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Dolores Albarrac��n in Journal of Health Psychology

sj-docx-2-hpq-10.1177_13591053221082770 for Religious affiliation and philosophical and moral beliefs about vaccines: A longitudinal study by Ozan Kuru, Man-pui Sally Chan, Hang Lu, Dominik Andrzej Stecula, Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Dolores Albarrac��n in Journal of Health Psychology

Those in the Rose et al. (1) study share a common land-grant heritage and the charter and obligations it carries. As faculty members in tenure track, they also are incentivized by similar rewards and constraints. Accordingly, their perceptions can provide insight into ways that these institutions can better honor their ancestral missions while also enhancing community engagement by those with the skill, temperament, interest, and expert knowledge needed to make a contribution worthy of their effort. Although land-grant institutions are “steeped in founding traditions of public service and impact” (1), commitment to these goals has waxed and waned. “In Wisconsin the university is as close to the intelligent farmer as his pig-pen or his tool-house,” noted Lincoln Steffans (2) in 1909. He added that, “to the worker, the university … is as much his as his union is his or his favorite saloon.” But, nine decades later, under the title Returning to Our Roots, a report of the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities would contend that “we have lost sight of our institutional mission to address the contemporary multidisciplinary problems of the real world” (3). The currency of that Commission’s 1999 call to make engagement “a central part of institutional mission” (3) should heighten concern about the findings that many land-grant faculty members who engage in public communication “feel unsupported” and relatively few see public engagement as important to their colleagues (1). If unaddressed, these perceptions may undercut initiatives such as the Public Impact Research one, of the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU), designed to “build new knowledge and engage with stakeholders to identify and address societal issues” (4). As the APLU effort rolls out, it might be useful to remind ourselves of the roots to which the Kellogg report refers, among … [↵][1]1Email: kathleen.jamieson{at}asc.upenn.edu. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-pus-10.1177_09636625211012630 for The effects of media narratives about failures and discoveries in science on beliefs about and support for science by Yotam Ophir and Kathleen Hall Jamieson in Public Understanding of Science

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-pus-10.1177_09636625211012630 for The effects of media narratives about failures and discoveries in science on beliefs about and support for science by Yotam Ophir and Kathleen Hall Jamieson in Public Understanding of Science

Trust in science increases when scientists and the outlets certifying their work honor science’s norms. Scientists often fail to signal to other scientists and, perhaps more importantly, the public that these norms are being upheld. They could do so as they generate, certify, and react to each other’s findings: for example, by promoting the use and value of evidence, transparent reporting, self-correction, replication, a culture of critique, and controls for bias. A number of approaches for authors and journals would lead to more effective signals of trustworthiness at the article level. These include article badging, checklists, a more extensive withdrawal ontology, identity verification, better forward linking, and greater transparency.

Supplemental material, Supplemental_PDF for Conversion messages and attitude change: Strong arguments, not costly signals by Benjamin A. Lyons, Ariel Hasell, Meghnaa Tallapragada and Kathleen Hall Jamieson in Public Understanding of Science

In keeping with the growing movement in scientific publishing toward transparency in data and methods, we argue that the names of authors accompanying journal articles should provide insight into who is responsible for which contributions, a process should exist to confirm that the list is complete, clearly articulated standards should establish whether and when the contributions of an individual justify authorship credit, and those involved in the generation of scientific knowledge should follow these best practices.To accomplish these goals, we recommend that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy)1methodology for attributing contributions, include this information in article metadata, and encourage authors to use the digital persistent identifier ORCID.2Furthermore, we suggest that research institutions have regular open conversations on authorship criteria and ethics and that funding agencies adopt ORCID and accept CRediT. Scientific societies should further authorship transparency by promoting these recommendations through their meetings and publications programs.

Against the background of policy debates by advocates and opponents like nongovernmental organizations about regulation of biotechnology, this chapter summarizes communication by mass media about biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the public sphere. On the one hand there are several Eurobarometer surveys dealing with knowledge, perceptions, and opinions for or against biotechnology in the different European countries, and on the other hand, several analyses of media content have been realized, focusing on key events like the sheep Dolly and issues, cycles, or media frames like scientific progress, economic prospects, ethics, or Pandora’s box and arguments for or against biotechnology. The existing research demonstrates how media and lay persons perceive and construct risks as well benefits of new technologies like biotechnology and GMOs.