Alice Fleerackers

*Press release originally published by [Simon Fraser
University](http://www.sfu.ca/){rel="noreferrer noopener"
target="_blank"} on January 6, 2021*

------------------------------------------------------------------------

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/31-covid-1024x683.jpg"
class="wp-image-3305" loading="lazy" decoding="async"
srcset="https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/31-covid-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/31-covid-300x200.jpg 300w, https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/31-covid-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/31-covid-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://www.scholcommlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/31-covid-2048x1365.jpg 2048w"
sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" width="1024" height="683" />
<figcaption>Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain</figcaption>
</figure>

A [new SFU-led
study](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10410236.2020.1864892){rel="noreferrer noopener"
target="_blank"} finds that almost half of media stories in early 2020
featuring COVID-19 'preprint' research---research that has not yet been
peer-reviewed---accurately framed the studies as being preprints or
unverified research.

SFU PhD student Alice Fleerackers, a researcher in the Scholarly
Communications Lab, and publishing program professor Juan Pablo Alperin
collaborated with an international team of researchers to analyze more
than 500 mentions in over 450 stories from digital news outlets covering
preprint COVID-19 research. The study was published this week in *Health
Communication*.

Their analysis is based on 100 COVID-19 preprints posted on top-ranked
preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv from January 1 to April 30, 2020.

"We found that it wasn't just newer, less 'traditional' media outlets,
like Medium or Yahoo! News that did not accurately identify the research
as preprint or preliminary," Fleerackers says. "Even established
publications like *The New York Times* and *The Guardian* did not
consistently describe the preprints they covered as unreviewed."

The media's coverage of COVID-19 preprints may in part be a reflection
of larger pressures facing the scientific community. "The urgency of the
pandemic required researchers and journalists to sacrifice the
assurances of peer review for more rapid publication," Alperin explains.
"Just as researchers are adjusting to the new way of rapidly
communicating among each other, so too are journalists figuring out how
that greater uncertainty needs to be conveyed to the public."

Fleerackers notes that coverage of preprint research can be helpful to
the public. For example, sharing findings about promising prevention
strategies as early as possible can save lives. But it can also
undermine the public's trust in the media if a preprint is
mischaracterized as widely accepted science but the findings are later
discredited.

"We saw this with a couple of high profile preprints published at the
beginning of the pandemic, for example, which linked tobacco to COVID-19
prevention," she explains. "These studies were highly flawed, but they
got a ton of media coverage---sparking unnecessary panic and even
encouraging some people to pick up smoking."

The early months of the pandemic offered few examples of best practices
to turn to and the science continued to evolve, rapidly changing what
was known about the virus and how the public could best protect
themselves from becoming infected. Fleerackers adds that reporters
covering coronavirus often had little or no expertise in health and
science.

"Journalists have not had an easy year. All things considered, I'm
impressed with what they've been able to accomplish despite the odds,"
she says. "And overall, audiences seem to be responding well. Many
countries saw a boost in news consumption during the early stages of the
pandemic, and trust in journalism has been high."

**Read the full paper at *[Health
Communication](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10410236.2020.1864892){rel="noreferrer noopener"
target="_blank"}* or find out more at the [project
website](https://www.scholcommlab.ca/research/science-communication/){target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer noopener"}.**


<em>
 Press release originally published by Simon Fraser University on January 6, 2021
</em>
A new SFU-led study finds that almost half of media stories in early 2020 featuring COVID-19 ‘preprint’ research—research that has not yet been peer-reviewed—accurately framed the studies as being preprints or unverified research.

Rogue Scholar Beiträge

Almost half of media stories fail to label ‘preprint’ COVID-19 research