English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This study examined effects of two journalistic practices in reporting conflicting scientific evidence, hedging and presentation format, on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility and issue uncertainty. Methods: An online experiment was conducted using students from a western U.S. university. Hedging was manipulated as reporting methodological limitations versus not reporting the limitations in news articles covering the conflict. Presentation format was manipulated as using a single news article to report both sides of the conflict versus using double articles with one side of the conflict in one article and the other side in the other article. Results: The study found that perceived issue uncertainty was higher in hedged news articles than that in non-hedged articles; presentation format did not affect people’s perceived issue uncertainty. For scientists’ credibility (both

Conflicting Health-Related Scientific Evidence in News Reports: Effects of Hedging and Presentation Format on Perceived Issue Uncertainty and Scientists’ and Journalists’ Credibility