Abstract
A citation advantage for research covered by the mass media is a plausible, but poorly studied phenomenon. Two previous studies, both conducted in the United States, found a positive correlation between media reporting and citations. Only one of these studies was able to conclude that the correlation was caused by a real “publicity effect” rather than by the media highlighting papers that are intrinsically destined to have greater scientific impact (called the ‘earmark’ hypothesis). This study assessed the relative importance of the publicity effect outside the US, by comparing studies published in 2008 and 2009 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that had been featured in newspapers in Italy and the United Kingdom. Newspapers in the two countries covered a similar range of topics, and tended to over-represent local (national) research. Compared to studies not appearing in any of the newspapers considered, those featured in British newspapers had around 63 % more citations, whilst in Italian newspapers 16 %. The proportion of citations from Italian authors, however, was significantly increased by newspapers, particularly by those in Italian. The equivalent effect on citations from the UK was smaller and only marginally significant. Studies accompanied by a press release did not receive, overall, significantly more citations. In sum, results suggest that the publicity effect is strongest for English-speaking media, whilst non-English reporting has mostly a local influence. These effects might represent a confounding factor in citation-based research assessment and might contribute to the many biases known to affect the scientific literature.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bartlett, C., Sterne, J., & Egger, M. (2002). What is newsworthy? Longitudinal study of the reporting of medical research in two British newspapers. British Medical Journal, 325(7355), 81–84.
Bauer, M. W., Petkova, K., Boyadjieva, P., & Gornev, G. (2006). Long-term trends in the public representation of science across the ‘Iron Curtain’: 1946–1995. Social Studies of Science, 36(1), 99–131.
Bucchi, M., & Mazzolini, R. G. (2003). Big science, little news:Science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946–1997. Public Understanding of Science, 12(1), 7–24.
Burnham, J. C. (1987). How superstition won and science lost—popularizing science and health in the United States. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Clark, F., & Illman, D. L. (2006). A longitudinal study of the New York times science times section. Science Communication, 27(4), 496–513.
Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., & Dudo, A. (2009). Socialization or Rewards? Predicting US scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 299–314.
Elmer, C., Badenschier, F., & Wormer, H. (2008). Science for everybody? How the coverage of research issues in German newspapers has increased dramatically. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(4), 878–893.
Entwistle, V. (1995). Reporting research in medical journals and newspapers. British Medical Journal, 310(6984), 920–923.
Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 5(3). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010068.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
Glanzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2004). Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations? Scientometrics, 61(3), 395–404.
Kiernan, V. (2003). Diffusion of news about research. Science Communication, 25(1), 3–13.
Martin-Sempere, M. J., Garzon-Garcia, B., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2008). Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid science fair. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 349–367.
Panaretos, J., & Malesios, C. (2009). Assessing scientific research performance and impact with single indices. Scientometrics, 81(3), 635–670.
Perneger, T. V. (2010). Citation analysis of identical consensus statements revealed journal-related bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(6), 660–664.
Phillips, D. P., Kanter, E. J., Bednarczyk, B., & Tastad, P. L. (1991). Importance of the Lay Press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. New England Journal of Medicine, 325(16), 1180–1183.
Song, F., Parekh, S., Hooper, L., Loke, Y. K., Ryder, J., Sutton, A. J., et al. (2010). Dissemination and publication of research findings: An updated review of related biases. Health Technology Assessment, 14(8). doi:10.3310/hta14080.
Stryker, J. E. (2002). Reporting medical information: Effects of press releases and newsworthiness on medical journal articles’ visibility in the news media. Preventive Medicine, 35(5), 519–530.
R Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org/.
Tsfati, Y., Cohen, J., Gunther, A. C. (2011). The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Communication, 33(2), 143–166.
van Rooyen, C. (2003). A report on science and technology coverage in the South African print media. South African Foundation for Education, Science and Technology.
Vantrigt, A. M., Dejongvandenberg, L. T. W., Voogt, L. M., Willems, J., Tromp, T. F. J., Haaijer-Ruskamp, F. M. (1995). Setting the agenda—does the medical literature set the agenda for articles about medicines in the newspapers. Social Science and Medicine, 41(6), 893–899.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fanelli, D. Any publicity is better than none: newspaper coverage increases citations, in the UK more than in Italy. Scientometrics 95, 1167–1177 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0925-0
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0925-0