Evaluating Accuracy in Online Science News Articles

Inaccuracies and omissions in online science news is a major source of misinformation, with a potentially significant negative impact on the general public. With a vast majority of Americans consuming news through online sources, more research is required on the impact these errors have on the legitimacy of science journalism. This study aims to establish baseline methods and measurements for quantification of the accuracy and completeness of online science news articles with respect to both one another and the primary studies upon which they are based. Eleven total outlets and 84 news articles reporting on 14 primary studies were analyzed using both objective and subjective scoring, then normalized and converted to percentages. Results showed a per-outlet normalized objective score range of 58-85.1%, and a per-outlet normalized subjective score range of 32.5-100%. The two highest overall (combined) scoring outlets were Science Daily and Live Science, and the two lowest overall scoring outlets were the New York Post and The Hill. A frequency distribution of per-article normalized objective scores showed the most common objective score was between 70 and 95%.