Archives des mots-clés : Mike S. Schäfer

Trust in science, trust in ChatGPT? How Germans think about generative AI as a source in science communication

Posté le par

Authors : Mike S. Schäfer, Bastian Kremer, Niels G. Mede, Liliann Fischer

Generative AI like ChatGPT has been diagnosed to fundamentally impact different realms of life. This includes science communication, where GenAI tools are becoming important sources of science-related content for many people. This raises the question of whether people trust GenAI as a source in this field, a question that has not been answered sufficiently yet.

Adapting a model developed by Roberts et al. [2013] and utilizing survey data from the German Science Barometer 2023, we find that Germans are rather sceptical about and do not strongly trust GenAI in science communication. Structural equation modelling shows that respondents’ trust in GenAI as a source in science communication is driven strongly by their general trust in science, which is largely driven by their knowledge about science and the perception that science improves quality of life.

URL : Trust in science, trust in ChatGPT? How Germans think about generative AI as a source in science communication

DOI : https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23090204

Evaluations in science communication. Current state and future directions

Posté le par

Authors : Sophia C. Volk , Mike S. Schäfer

Evaluations are becoming more important in science communication. But both science communication practitioners and researchers are not sufficiently utilizing the potential of evaluations yet. In this essay, we first define four requirements for rigorous evaluations of science communication activities and projects.

To substantiate our argument, we take stock of the scientific literature, uncover deficiencies in current evaluation practices and identify potential causes. We conclude with laying out how different actors in the field — including science communication practitioners, professional associations, scientific institutions and funding bodies as well as researchers — can contribute to advancing evaluation practices in science communication as well as research on it.

URL : Evaluations in science communication. Current state and future directions

DOI : https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23060401

Whose research benefits more from Twitter? On Twitter-worthiness of communication research and its role in reinforcing disparities of the field

Posté le par

Authors : Chung-hong Chan, Jing Zeng, Mike S. Schäfer

Twitter has become an important promotional tool for scholarly work, but individual academic publications have varied degrees of visibility on the platform. We explain this variation through the concept of Twitter-worthiness: factors making certain academic publications more likely to be visible on Twitter.

Using publications from communication studies as our analytical case, we conduct statistical analyses of 32187 articles spanning 82 journals. Findings show that publications from G12 countries, covering social media topics and published open access tend to be mentioned more on Twitter.

Similar to prior studies, this study demonstrates that Twitter mentions are associated with peer citations. Nevertheless, Twitter also has the potential to reinforce pre-existing disparities between communication research communities, especially between researchers from developed and less-developed regions. Open access, however, does not reinforce such disparities.

URL : Whose research benefits more from Twitter? On Twitter-worthiness of communication research and its role in reinforcing disparities of the field

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278840