An updated Annenberg Science Media Monitor on retractions of scientific findings found just 38% of the articles analyzed indicated how the errors or misconduct occurred.
![Popcorn image. A study of popcorn-eating behavior was one of the retractions of scientific findings analyzed in the update of the third Annenberg Science Media Monitor.](https://cdn.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/valeri-randalainen-WkG2r7FVQLw-unsplash-c-360x144.jpg)
An updated Annenberg Science Media Monitor on retractions of scientific findings found just 38% of the articles analyzed indicated how the errors or misconduct occurred.
In an effort to increase public understanding of the scientific process, the Annenberg Science Media Monitor has published reports seeking to improve science reporting in the news media.
In its fourth report, the Annenberg Science Media Monitor focuses on media reports about crisis and self-correction in science and efforts to address them.
To sustain trust in science, scientists must more clearly show the public -- and each other -- that they honor scientific norms, Kathleen Hall Jamieson and other scholars assert in an article in PNAS.
Many people say they don't live near a nuclear, fracking, or refinery site when they do. A new study looks at how the public forms perceptions of proximity to risk sites such as nuclear, fracking and refinery sites.
As a guest on Wharton's SiriusXM radio channel, APPC postdoctoral fellow Matt Motta (center) discussed findings on climate change beliefs that were published in Climatic Change.
The NSF awarded $3 million to station KQED to study the engagement of millennials with science news. The project is connected with several APPC-affiliated scholars.