Phillips D P, Kanter E J, Bednarczyk B, Tastad P L
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla 92093.
N Engl J Med. 1991 Oct 17;325(16):1180-3. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199110173251620.
Efficient, undistorted communication of the results of medical research is important to physicians, the scientific community, and the public. Information that first appears in the scientific literature is frequently retransmitted in the popular press. Does popular coverage of medical research in turn amplify the effects of that research on the scientific community?
To test the hypothesis that researchers are more likely to cite papers that have been publicized in the popular press, we compared the number of references in the Science Citation Index to articles in the New England Journal of Medicine that were covered by The New York Times with the number of references to similar articles that were not covered by the Times. We also performed the comparison during a three-month period when the Times was on strike but continued to prepare an "edition of record" that was not distributed; doing so enabled us to address the possibility that coverage in the Times was simply a marker of the most important articles, which would therefore be cited more frequently, even without coverage in the popular press.
Articles in the Journal that were covered by the Times received a disproportionate number of scientific citations in each of the 10 years after the Journal articles appeared. The effect was strongest in the first year after publication, when Journal articles publicized by the Times received 72.8 percent more scientific citations than control articles. This effect was not present for articles published during the strike; articles covered by the Times during this period were no more likely to be cited than those not covered.
Coverage of medical research in the popular press amplifies the transmission of medical information from the scientific literature to the research community.
医学研究结果的高效、准确传播对医生、科学界和公众都很重要。首次出现在科学文献中的信息经常会在大众媒体上再次传播。那么大众媒体对医学研究的报道反过来会扩大该研究对科学界的影响吗?
为了检验研究人员更有可能引用已在大众媒体上宣传的论文这一假设,我们比较了《科学引文索引》中对《纽约时报》报道的《新英格兰医学杂志》文章的引用次数与对《纽约时报》未报道的类似文章的引用次数。我们还在《纽约时报》罢工但仍继续准备一份未发行的“记录版”的三个月期间进行了比较;这样做使我们能够探讨《纽约时报》的报道是否仅仅是最重要文章的一个标志,因此即使没有大众媒体的报道,这些文章也会被更频繁地引用。
《新英格兰医学杂志》上被《纽约时报》报道的文章在发表后的10年里每年都获得了不成比例的科学引用次数。这种影响在发表后的第一年最为强烈,当时被《纽约时报》宣传的《新英格兰医学杂志》文章比对照文章多获得72.8%的科学引用。罢工期间发表的文章没有这种影响;在此期间被《纽约时报》报道的文章被引用的可能性并不比未被报道的文章更高。
大众媒体对医学研究的报道扩大了医学信息从科学文献到研究界的传播。