Frequency distribution of journalistic attention for scientific studies and scientific sources: An input–output analysis
Fig 1
Frequency distribution of journalistic references to scientific journals by a) eight German science beats between 1995 and 1996 (N = 408) and b) the New York Times (N = 545) between 1998 and 2012 [33,41]. Source: Own presentation based on data a) from [33]: 408 references were analysed; these were for 1. Nature (74), 2. Science (55), 3. NEJM (43), 4. Lancet (35), 5. New Scientist (21), 6. PNAS (13), 7. JAMA (11), 8. Nature Medicine (11), 9. BMJ (9), 10. Münchner Medizinische Wochenschrift (MMW) (8), and 128 other journals (number of references missing in the publication) and from b) [41]: 1,054 references were analysed; these were for Nature (171), Science (126), PNAS (99), NEJM (44), JAMA (42), Archives of Internal Medicine (26), Lancet (26), and 267 other journals (number of references missing in the publication).