This study tested whether the transparent use of preprint sources affects the perceived credibility of science news and scientists. In an experiment, U.S. adults read a news report describing COVID-19 research as a “preprint” (with varying levels of detail) or as simply a “study.” There were no main effects of disclosing preprint status, but indirect effects emerged. For those who noticed the disclosure, both brief and fuller depictions of a study’s preprint status enhanced the credibility of the reporting and the scientists behind the research. However, perceiving the science to be uncertain negatively mediated the effects of preprint disclosure on credibility appraisals among Republicans.
AbdullaR. A.GarrisonB.SalwenM. B.DriscollP. D.CaseyD. (2004). Online news credibility. In SalwenM. B.GarrisonB.DriscollP. D. (Eds.), Online news and the public (pp. 147–163). Routledge.
2.
AbhariR.HorvátE.-Á. (2024). “They only silence the truth”: COVID-19 retractions and the politicization of science. Public Understanding of Science, 34(3), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241290142
3.
AlperinJ. P.ShoresK.FleerackersA.ChtenaN. (2024). Stark decline in journalists’ use of preprints postpandemic. Science Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470241285405
4.
BergJ. M.BhallaN.BourneP. E.ChalfieM.DrubinD. G.FraserJ. S.GreiderC. W.HendricksM.JonesC.KileyR.KingS.KirschnerM. W.KrumholzH. M.LehmannR.LeptinM.PulvererB.RosenzweigB.SpiroJ. E.StebbinsM.. . . WolbergerC. (2016). Preprints for the life sciences. Science, 352(6288), 899–901. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf9133
5.
BhuiyanM. M.WhitleyH.HorningM.LeeS. W.MitraT. (2021). Designing transparency cues in online news platforms to promote trust: Journalists’ & consumers’ perspectives. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1–31.
6.
BrierleyL. (2021). Lessons from the influx of preprints during the early COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(3), e115–e117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00011-5
7.
BrierleyL.NanniF.PolkaJ. K.DeyG.PálfyM.FraserN.CoatesJ. A. (2022). Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic. PLOS Biology, 20(2), Article e3001285. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001285
8.
Bruine de BruinW.SawH. W.GoldmanD. P. (2020). Political polarization in US residents’ COVID-19 risk perceptions, policy preferences, and protective behaviors. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 61(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-020-09336-3
9.
CataldoT.FanielI.BuhlerA.BrannonB.ConnawayL. S.PutnamS. (2023). Students’ perceptions of preprints discovered in Google: A window into recognition and evaluation. College & Research Libraries, 84(1), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.84.1.137
10.
CaulfieldT.BubelaT.KimmelmanJ.RavitskyV. (2021). Let’s do better: Public representations of COVID-19 science. Facets, 6(1), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2021-0018
ChangC. (2015). Motivated processing: How people perceive news covering novel or contradictory health research findings. Science Communication, 37(5), 602–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015597914
13.
CyrC.CataldoT. T.BrannonB.BuhlerA.FanielI.Silipigni ConnawayL.Kasman ValenzaJ.ElrodR.PutnamS. (2021). Backgrounds and behaviors: Which students successfully identify online resources in the face of container collapse. First Monday, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v26i3.10871
DriesC.McDowellM.RebitschekF. G.LeukerC. (2024). When evidence changes: Communicating uncertainty protects against a loss of trust. Public Understanding of Science, 33(6), 777–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241228449
16.
DrzymallaE.YuW.KhouryM. J.GwinnM. (2022). COVID-19-related manuscripts: Lag from preprint to publication. BMC Research Notes, 15(1), Article340. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06231-9
17.
FawziN.SteindlN.ObermaierM.ProchazkaF.ArltD.BlöbaumB.DohleM.EngelkeK. M.HanitzschT.JackobN.JakobsI.KlawierT.PostS.ReinemannC.SchweigerW.ZiegeleM. (2021). Concepts, causes and consequences of trust in news media–a literature review and framework. Annals of the International Communication Association, 45(2), 154–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1960181
18.
FigdorC. (2024). Science journalism and epistemic virtues in science communication: A defense of sincerity, transparency, and honesty. Episteme, 21(4), 1434–1445. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2023.38
FleerackersA.MoorheadL. L.MaggioL. A.FaganK.AlperinJ. P. (2022). Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists’ use and perception of preprints. PLOS ONE, 17(11), Article e0277769. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277769
21.
FleerackersA.RatcliffC. L.WickeR.KingA. J.JensenJ. D. (2025). Public understanding of preprints: How audiences make sense of unreviewed research in the news. Public Understanding of Science, 34(2), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241268881
22.
FleerackersA.RiedlingerM.MoorheadL.AhmedR.AlperinJ. P. (2022). Communicating scientific uncertainty in an age of COVID-19: An investigation into the use of preprints by digital media outlets. Health Communication, 37(6), 726–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1864892
23.
FleerackersA.ShoresK.ChtenaN.AlperinJ. P. (2024). Unreviewed science in the news: The evolution of preprint media coverage from 2014–2021. Quantitative Science Studies, 5(2), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00282
24.
FraserN.BrierleyL.DeyG.PolkaJ. K.PálfyM.NanniF.CoatesJ. A. (2021). The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. PLOS Biology, 19(4), Article e3000959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959
GriffinM.MartinoR. J.LoSchiavoC.Comer-CarruthersC.KrauseK. D.StultsC. B.HalkitisP. N. (2022). Ensuring survey research data integrity in the era of internet bots. Quality & Quantity, 56, 2841–2852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01252-1
27.
GuoZ.LiuK.ChenM. (2025). A meta-analysis synthesizing the effects of three uncertainty types in science communication. Advance online publication. Science Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470251314129
28.
GustafsonA.RiceR. E. (2020). A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 29(6), 614–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520942122
29.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
30.
HendriksF.KienhuesD.BrommeR. (2016). Disclose your flaws! Admission positively affects the perceived trustworthiness of an expert science blogger. Studies in Communication Sciences, 16(2), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scoms.2016.10.003
31.
JamiesonK. H. (2018). Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2620–2627. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708276114
32.
JensenJ. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility. Human Communication Research, 34(3), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00324.x
33.
JensenJ. D.BarbourJ. B.LillieH. M.RatcliffC. L.PokharelM.KingA. J. (2025). Perceptions of pandemic messaging across 36 weeks: A repeated cross-section design with U.S. adults. Science Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470251318199
34.
JohanssonM. A.ReichN. G.MeyersL. A.LipsitchM. (2018). Preprints: An underutilized mechanism to accelerate outbreak science. PLOS Medicine, 15(4), Article e1002549. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002549
35.
KerrJ.PanagopoulosC.van der LindenS. (2021). Political polarization on COVID-19 pandemic response in the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 179, 110892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110892
KodvanjI.HomolakJ.ViragD.TrkuljaV. (2022). Publishing of COVID-19 preprints in peer-reviewed journals, preprinting trends, public discussion and quality issues. Scientometrics, 127(3), 1339–1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04249-7
LoosenW.ReimerJ.HöligS. (2020). What journalists want and what they ought to do (in) congruences between journalists’ role conceptions and audiences’ expectations. Journalism Studies, 21(12), 1744–1774. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2020.1790026
MajumderM. S.MandlK. D. (2020). Early in the epidemic: Impact of preprints on global discourse about COVID-19 transmissibility. The Lancet Global Health, 8(5), e627–e630. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30113-3
43.
MaraniM.KatulG. G.PanW. K.ParolariA. J. (2021). Intensity and frequency of extreme novel epidemics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(35), Article e2105482118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2105482118
44.
MassaraniL.NevesL. F. F. (2022). Reporting COVID-19 preprints: Fast science in newspapers in the United States, the United Kingdom and Brazil. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 27(3), 957–968. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232022273.20512021
45.
MassaraniL.NevesL. F. F.EntradasM.LougheedT.BauerM. W. (2021). Perceptions of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work of science journalists: Global perspectives. Journal of Science Communication, 20(07), A06. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20070206
46.
MasulloG. M.CurryA. L.WhippleK. N.MurrayC. (2022). The story behind the story: Examining transparency about the journalistic process and news outlet credibility. Journalism Practice, 16(7), 1287–1305. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1870529
47.
McCrightA. M.DentzmanK.ChartersM.DietzT. (2013). The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environmental Research Letters, 8(4), 044029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044029
48.
McCroskeyJ. C.TevenJ. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464
49.
NadellaP.NavatheA. (2020). The media needs to incorporate principles of research communication to improve COVID-19 reporting. Healthcare, 8(4), 100473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2020.100473
50.
NaglerR. H.GollustS. E.YzerM. C.VogelR. I.RothmanA. J. (2023). Sustaining positive perceptions of science in the face of conflicting health information: An experimental test of messages about the process of scientific discovery. Social Science & Medicine, 334, 116194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116194
51.
NanayakkaraP.HullmanJ. (2020, March20–21). Toward better communication of uncertainty in science journalism [Conference presentation]. Computation + Journalism Symposium, Boston, MA, USA.
52.
National Science Board, National Science Foundation. (2022). Science and technology: Public perceptions, awareness, and information sources. Science and Engineering Indicators, 2022, NSB–2022. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20227
53.
OliveiraT.AraujoR. F.CerqueiraR. C.PedriP. (2021). Politização de controvérsias científicas pela mídia brasileira em tempos de pandemia: A circulação de preprints sobre Covid-19 e seus reflexos. [Politicization of scientific controversies by the Brazilian media in times of pandemic: The circulation of preprints about Covid-19 and its reflections.] Revista Brasileira de História da Mídia, 10(1), 30–52. https://doi.org/10.26664/issn.2238-5126.101202111810
54.
OphirY.JamiesonK. H. (2021). The effects of media narratives about failures and discoveries in science on beliefs about and support for science. Public Understanding of Science, 30(8), 1008–1023. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211012630
55.
OtridgeJ.OgdenC. L.BernsteinK. T.KnuthM.FishmanJ.BrooksJ. T. (2022). Publication and impact of preprints included in the first 100 editions of the CDC COVID-19 Science Update: Content analysis. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 8(7), e35276. https://doi.org/10.2196/35276
56.
Pew Research Center. (2023, November). Americans’ trust in scientists, positive views of science continue to decline. https://pewrsr.ch/47cjl7o
57.
RatcliffC. L.FleerackersA.WickeR.HarvillB.KingA. J.JensenJ. D. (2024). Framing COVID-19 preprint research as uncertain: A mixed-method study of public reactions. Health Communication, 39(2), 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2164954
58.
RatcliffC. L.HarvillB.WickeR. (2023). Understanding public preferences for learning about uncertain science: Measurement and individual difference correlates. Frontiers in Communication, 8, Article 1245786. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1245786
59.
RatcliffC. L.WickeR. (2023). How the public evaluates media representations of uncertain science: An integrated explanatory framework. Public Understanding of Science, 32(4), 410–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221122960
60.
RatcliffC. L.WickeR.HarvillB. (2022). Communicating uncertainty to the public during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review of the literature. Annals of the International Communication Association, 46(4), 260–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2022.2085136
61.
RekkerR. (2021). The nature and origins of political polarization over science. Public Understanding of Science, 30(4), 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662521989193
62.
RobertsD. C.UtychS. M. (2021). Polarized social distancing: Residents of republican-majority counties spend more time away from home during the COVID-19 crisis. Social Science Quarterly, 102(6), 2516–2527. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13101
Santos-d’AmorimK.Ribeiro de MeloR.Nonato Macedo dos SantosR. (2021). Retratações e citações pós-retratação na infodemia de COVID-19: a Academia está espalhando desinformação? [Retractions and post-retraction citations in the COVID-19 infodemic: Is academia spreading misinformation?]Liinc Em Revista, 17(1), e5593. https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v17i1.5593
65.
SimonsA.SchniedermannA. (2023). Preprints in the German news media before and during the COVID pandemic: A comparative mixed-method analysis. In BroerI.LemkeS.MazarakisA.PetersI.Zinke-WehlmannC. (Eds.), The science-media-interface: On the relation between internal and external science communication (pp. 53–78). De Gruyter Saur. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110776546-003
SteijaertM. J.SchaapG.van’t RietJ. (2021). Two-sided science: Communicating scientific uncertainty increases trust in scientists and donation intention by decreasing attribution of communicator bias. Communications, 46(2), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2019-0123
68.
UrmanA.IonescuS.GarciaD.HannákA. (2022). The politicization of medical preprints on Twitter during the early stages of COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media, 2, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2022.003
69.
U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). National population by characteristics: 2020-2024. U.S. Department of Commerce. https://data.census.gov/
70.
Van der BlesA. M.van der LindenS.FreemanA. L.MitchellJ.GalvaoA. B.ZavalL.SpiegelhalterD. J. (2019). Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science. Royal Society Open Science, 6(5), 181870. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.181870
71.
Van SchalkwykF.DudekJ. (2022). Reporting preprints in the media during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Understanding of Science, 31(5), 608–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221077392
72.
Van SchalkwykM. C. I.HirdT. R.MaaniN.PetticrewM.GilmoreA. B. (2020). The perils of preprints. British Medical Journal, 370, m3111. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3111
73.
Van ScoyL. J.SnyderB.MillerE. L.ToyoboO.GrewelA.HaG.GillespieS.PatelM.ReillyJ.ZgierskacA. E.LennonR. P. (2021). Public anxiety and distrust due to perceived politicization and media sensationalism during early COVID-19 media messaging. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 14(3), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2021.1953934
74.
VarnumC. N.WojdynskiB. W.BinfordM. T.DuncanJ. (2024). Designing for trust: How online news consumers view and interpret informational transparency boxes. Digital Journalism, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2024.2346749
75.
WangR.OphirY. (2024). Behind the black box: The moderating role of the machine heuristic on the effect of transparency information about automated journalism on hostile media bias perception. Journalism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241284575
76.
WickeR.RatcliffC. L.FleerackersA.WangY.KingA. J.JensenJ. D. (2025). Preprints in COVID-19 news coverage: Comparing student and general population perceptions of preliminary science about booster vaccination. Risk Analysis. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.70071
77.
WingenT.BerkesselJ. B.DohleS. (2022). Caution, preprint! Brief explanations allow nonscientists to differentiate between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 5(1), 25152459211070560. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211070559
78.
ZeraatkarD.PitreT.LeungG.CusanoE.AgarwalA.KhalidF.EscamillaZ.CooperM. A.GhadimiM.WangY.Verdugo-PaivaF.RadaG.KumE.QasimA.BartoszkoJ. J.SiemieniukR. A. C.PatelC.GuyattG.Brignardello-PetersenR. (2022). Consistency of covid-19 trial preprints with published reports and impact for decision making: Retrospective review. BMJ Medicine, 1(1), Article e000309. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000309
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
