Information Integrity and Public Trust
The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
Science reaches the public through journals, press releases, media, social platforms and advisers to government. Along the way, uncertainty is dropped, preliminary results are presented as settled, and corrections lag. Good science communication states what is known, how confident scientists are and what would change their view. This page sets out how science communication works and fails, the records that show it, and who decides.
GRF · In development · service level R0
Science communication is how research findings reach the public and decision makers through journals, press offices, media, platforms and advisers. Uncertainty is often lost, preprints move fast and corrections lag. Research institutions, journals, science advisers and newsrooms decide how findings are presented.
For science communication, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density and night lights, framed on Eastern Europe; 4 further NASA layers wait in the list.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 2
Connected activity, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
For science communication, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density and night lights, framed on Eastern Europe; 4 further NASA layers wait in the list.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
The working screen behind this subject: its structure, terms and states. Names are placeholders and values illustrative.
Science communication · Crisis information cell · Week 34
| Tap water poisoned after flood | 82 | High | False | Correction out |
| Shelters charging fees | 61 | Medium | False | Drafting |
| Dam about to fail | 78 | High | Checking | Holding line |
| Aid only for registered voters | 41 | Medium | False | Prebunked |
Uncertainty and honest communication. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Caveats in papers disappear in press releases and headlines. Calibrated language helps, but competition for attention pushes towards certainty.
Preprints share findings before peer review. They speed science and can spread unreviewed claims widely before errors are caught.
Retractions and corrections arrive long after the original claim and reach fewer people. Retracted papers continue to be cited.
Audiences weigh scientific claims by who delivers them and whether they fit prior beliefs. Engagement and listening matter as much as accuracy.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Preprint | A version of a scientific paper shared publicly before peer review. |
| Retraction | The formal withdrawal of a published paper because its findings are unreliable or it involved misconduct. |
| Calibrated language | Fixed terms tied to stated probability or confidence levels, used to communicate uncertainty consistently. |
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retractions | count by field | annual | Retraction Watch Database | REPORTED |
| Citations of retracted papers after retraction | count | periodic | Bibliometric studies | ESTIMATED |
| Press releases with exaggeration | share in sampled releases | per study | Content analyses | ESTIMATED |
| Trust in scientists | share of respondents | periodic | Wellcome Global Monitor | ESTIMATED |
| Science advisory bodies publishing advice | count | on change | Government records | OFFICIAL |
| Preprints later published after peer review | share | per study | Bibliometric studies | ESTIMATED |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| Retraction Watch Database | Retracted papers with reasons | Free to access via Crossref, terms to check |
| Crossref metadata | Publication, correction and retraction metadata | Metadata free, CC0 for most fields |
| Wellcome Global Monitor | Public trust in science | Free to read, terms to check |
| IPCC guidance on consistent treatment of uncertainties | Calibrated language for confidence and likelihood | Free, IPCC terms |
| INGSA records | International network of government science advice | Free to read, terms to check |
Information Integrity and Public Trust prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Research institutions and press offices | How findings are announced and uncertainty stated | Evidence on exaggeration and its effects |
| Journals and preprint servers | How corrections and retractions are flagged | Retraction records and practice |
| Government science advisers | How advice and its uncertainty are published | Comparative advice systems |
| Newsrooms | How to report preliminary and contested science | Reporting guidelines and research |
Science communication researchers ask how to be honest about uncertainty and still be useful.
Research suggests that communicating uncertainty honestly, for example as ranges or likelihoods with explanation, generally has small effects on trust and can increase perceived credibility, while overstated certainty that later proves wrong damages it. How uncertainty is framed matters: numerical ranges, verbal terms and visual formats are understood differently by different audiences.
People interpret scientific information through their values and identities. When scientific issues become associated with political or cultural identity, evidence alone rarely changes minds. Communication that respects audiences, acknowledges values and comes from trusted messengers tends to be more effective than repeated assertion of facts.
Testing formats for presenting uncertainty with social and behavioural science. Results vary by topic and audience.
Studying how science is reported. Coverage varies across outlets and countries.
Tracking trust in science over time. General trust differs from trust on specific topics.
Examining communication during contested episodes. Hindsight can distort assessments.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.