Investigative science journalism plays an increasingly vital role in shaping the science–society relationship. Science fraud and misconduct—such as hype, plagiarism, data manipulation, conflicts of interest, and other ethical breaches—are becoming more common, due to the infiltration of vested commercial and political interests, personal motives, work pressures, and other issues that compromise the integrity of the scholarly record. The number of publication retractions has skyrocketed in recent years. Journalists, as key brokers of research knowledge, can help raise awareness of these problematic aspects of science and ensure public audiences have the information needed to make decisions and form opinions based on trustworthy evidence. But the enaction of this watchdog role among science journalists remains the exception rather than the norm, and scholarly research into it is a rarity.
This thematic issue invites scholars to consider theories, practices, and implications of watchdog science journalism—broadly understood here as journalism that investigates, exposes, and warns society of the misuses and abuses of science methods, processes, outcomes, and authority by those practicing, funding, and/or using science in the public domain (e.g., scientists, government, businesses). It welcomes contributions on the pros and cons, theoretical or practical, of investigative science journalism and how it might impact public understanding, attitudes, and actions regarding science events and issues. Potential topics include, but are not limited to, issues around the following broad questions:
- How is watchdog science journalism distinguished from the more commonly promoted practice of “critical science journalism”?
- How do journalists conceptualize their role as science watchdogs, and to what extent is this role performed?
- What motivates journalists to act, or not to act, as watchdogs of science and its stakeholders?
- What techniques and strategies do journalists employ to shed light on the dark sides of science?
- What factors facilitate or hinder science journalists’ ability to perform a watchdog role?
- How does the science establishment (e.g., scientists and their institutions, science policy makers) respond to watchdog science journalism?
- How do publics perceive, receive, and approve/disapprove of watchdog science journalism?
- How have the above conceptions, performances, or impacts of the science watchdog role evolved in history?
- How do the above compare across geographic, cultural, or institutional contexts?
- What potential conceptual frameworks can be used to study journalism as a science watchdog?
