Overall and COVID-19-specific citation impact of highly visible COVID-19 media experts: bibliometric analysis

Ioannidis, John P. A.; Tezel, Alangoya; Jagsi, Reshma

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052856

Cited by 15 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In view of the relevant but scant state of research on the relationship between public presence and scientific expertise, we have to note at the same time that our findings (especially for the coronavirus experts visible in the media) do not confirm previous study results that refer to other science-related debates (Boyce, 2006; Dunwoody and Ryan, 1987; Goodell, 1977; Ioannidis et al, 2021; Lehmkuhl and Leidecker-Sandmann, 2019; Shepherd, 1981). These studies state that beyond the small, specialized science press, journalism does not usually seem to use contributing expertise as a criterion for expert selection.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…In the past, only a few studies have specifically dealt with the connection between scientific expertise and scientific experts' mass media presence. With one exception (Weingart, 2001), their results suggest that there is at most a weak correlation between a scientist's expertise and their public presence (see, for example, Boyce, 2006;Dunwoody and Ryan, 1987;Goodell, 1977;Ioannidis et al, 2021;Lehmkuhl and Leidecker-Sandmann, 2019;Shepherd, 1981).…”

Section: Scientific Actors In Media Coverage (Of Covid-19)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent analysis by Ioannidis et al (2021) also shows a disconnect between highly visible COVID-19 media experts and scientific expertise, operationalized by citation indices.…”

Section: Scientific Actors In Media Coverage (Of Covid-19)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Selected by expertise? Scientific experts in German news coverage of COVID-19 compared to other pandemics

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific expertise was and is more in demand than perhaps ever before. Scientific “experts” serve as an important source of information for journalists and for society. Our study analyzes, which experts get a chance to speak in German news coverage of COVID-19 compared to other pandemics, how diverse the spectrum of selected experts is and how their scientific expertise is to be assessed. Our findings show that the COVID-19 coverage is dominated by actors from the political executive and less than in previous pandemics by scientific experts. In addition, the coronavirus debate is characterized by a greater diversity of expert voices and the journalistic selection of scientific experts is biased in favor of those who have a high scientific expertise. On average, COVID-19 coverage seems to be biased more pronouncedly in favor of reputable scientific experts compared to previous debates on pandemics.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Scientific Actors In Media Coverage (Of Covid-19)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Selected by expertise? Scientific experts in German news coverage of COVID-19 compared to other pandemics

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the face of international scientific controversy [18][19][20][21][22], the Malian state was faced with a choice that was fraught with ideological drift [18][19][20], in an African and national context that was clearly in favor of hydroxychloroquine, making it difficult to communicate an unambiguous message [21][22][23]. The domestic political context, with a very critical opinion of the State itself and in particular of its governance of the pandemic [11], certainly had an influence in making it impossible to make the political choice of refusing a "solution of hope for the Malian population" [20,[23][24][25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How the Malian press treated hydroxychloroquine at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic

Escot

Zinszer

Abalovi

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The global debate on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) on COVID-19 has gone far beyond the scientific framework and has been highly politicized. These issues immediately invested the debate on HCQ and made it an object of particular crystallization. This study analyzes, through the Malian press, the echo of this debate in the national background. Methods Mixed methods design, based on a review of 452 articles about COVID-19 published by six major Malian newspapers, from January 1st to July 31st 2020. Results of a content analysis with WORDSTAT8 software were further explained by a thematic qualitative analysis using and deductive-indictive approach. Results The debate on HCQ has had very little echo in the Malian press despite some interest, because of a lack of anchoring and thus of a "response" at the national level. The national health authorities, who adopted the treatment as part of clinical trials, and the press, stayed away from both the medical and the "ideological" components of the debate, despite these a priori directly involved a country like Mali. Conclusions The paper sheds light on the issues at stake in the HCQ debate based on a case study of an atypical country in terms of impacts of Covid-19. The governance of COVID helped crystallize political opposition to the presidential regime leading to a coup in August.

show abstract

“…24 , 25 In Scopus (with data as of August 2021), 98 of the top 100 most‐cited scientific papers in 2020 were COVID‐19‐related; this metric declined to 75/100 most‐cited papers in 2021, but it remains extraordinarily high. 80 The fact that many scientists have entangled themselves in news, social media wars, 81 and even outright political and financial agendas related to COVID‐19 does not portend good omens. Overblown scientific interest may prolong the pandemic perceptions.…”

Section: Public Attention Receivedmentioning

confidence: 99%

The end of the COVID‐19 pandemic

Ioannidis

2022

Eur J Clin Investigation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are no widely accepted, quantitative definitions for the end of a pandemic such as COVID‐19. The end of the pandemic due to a new virus and the transition to endemicity may be defined based on a high proportion of the global population having some immunity from natural infection or vaccination. Other considerations include diminished death toll, diminished pressure on health systems, reduced actual and perceived personal risk, removal of restrictive measures and diminished public attention. A threshold of 70% of the global population having being vaccinated or infected was probably already reached in the second half of 2021. Endemicity may still show major spikes of infections and seasonality, but typically less clinical burden, although some locations are still hit more than others. Death toll and ICU occupancy figures are also consistent with a transition to endemicity by end 2021/early 2022. Personal risk of the vast majority of the global population was already very small by end 2021, but perceived risk may still be grossly overestimated. Restrictive measures of high stringency have persisted in many countries by early 2022. The gargantuan attention in news media, social media and even scientific circles should be tempered. Public health officials need to declare the end of the pandemic. Mid‐ and long‐term consequences of epidemic waves and of adopted measures on health, society, economy, civilization and democracy may perpetuate a pandemic legacy long after the pandemic itself has ended.

show abstract

Overall and COVID-19-specific citation impact of highly visible COVID-19 media experts: bibliometric analysis

Cited by 15 publications

References 21 publications

Selected by expertise? Scientific experts in German news coverage of COVID-19 compared to other pandemics

Selected by expertise? Scientific experts in German news coverage of COVID-19 compared to other pandemics

How the Malian press treated hydroxychloroquine at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic

The end of the COVID‐19 pandemic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About