Patterns in the journalistic selection of neuroscientific research results
This study compares the journalistic selection of scientific results from the field of neuroscience with other scientific disciplines. Based on an input-output analysis using data from the citation database Scopus and the alternative bibliometrics provider Altmetric, we investigated which scientific studies from which scientific journals have been selected by global journalism. Previous research suggests that the selection of sources and results in science journalism follows a certain heavy-tailed distribution, a power law. This structure of journalistic coverage is a result of conditions on the micro-level of actions and decisions of individual journalists. Among these conditions are restrictions that derive from the process and constitution of scientific publishing and research results. We argue that the parameter of such power law distributions can potentially be used to describe selectivity in journalism on a high aggregation level. Differences in the value of the parameter point to differences in the conditions present on the micro-level. To test this assumption, we chose a field of research that has attracted a considerable degree of public attention over the last few years: neuroscience. We expected to find differences in the exponent of power law distributions between neuroscience and other scientific disciplines. Our results show that the frequency distribution of journalistic references to single studies and journals in the coverage of neuroscientific research can be described by a power law. The selection of scientific journals is more homogenous in neuroscience in the sense that there is a less pronounced dominance of just a few journals. It is proposed to interpret this as an effect of the greater popularity of neuroscience.