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…
Historically, scientists and journalists have followed closely a set of ground rules that govern their interactions, leading to a "negotiation of newsworthiness" when it comes to science. Yet this co-production of coverage often leads to what Andrew Revkin calls the "tyranny of the news peg,"…
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…
There's an article in yesterday's New York Times about doubts the public is having about the goodness of scientific publications as they learn more about what the peer-review system does, and does not, involve. It's worth a read, if only to illuminate what non-scientists seem to have assumed went…