The answer is probably not, but journal editors do have other motives and incentives involved than just publishing technically sound research. With the publication of two studies last week that shaped the framing of the stem cell vote in Congress, over at Framing Science, I explain the "negotiation of scientific newsworthiness" that goes on between journal editors and news organizations.
In fact, I argue that journal editors and news editors share many common imperatives, notably that they work for profit-driven organizations that need to maintain a subscriber base by generating drama, interest, and attention. Given these biases, the timing of publication at leading journals is likely to be more than just random.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Consider the following events, their political timing, and their impact on the framing of the stem cell debate:
1) Last week, as the House was preparing to vote on legislation that would overturn Bush's limits on funding for embryonic stem cell research, studies published at the journals Nature…
Yesterday, stem cell researcher John Gearhart, Washington Post reporter Rick Weiss, and physician William Hurlburt appeared on NPR's Diane Rehm Show to discuss the latest in the stem cell debate. I recommend listening to the archived audio as the program provides a great deal of context in…
I am back from an excellent science journalism conference in Denmark and will have more to say on the meeting which highlighted several issues that speak directly to challenges faced here in the US. But for now, I wanted to return to our Commentary article "Science Communication Re-Considered"…
Over the summer I addressed by video conference a meeting by the National Academies on state science policy advice. They've now produced a report based on that meeting and it is free as a PDF download.
Chapter Five of the report focuses on the communication of science advice at the state level…