[un]reliable science
Scientific misrepresentation in mainstream media can fuel misinformation, distort public perceptions and have real-world consequences, from public health crises to policy failures. This project examines how unreliable scientific information is disseminated through traditional news channels and amplified on digital platforms. By examining cases such as retracted studies and misleading claims, we aim to improve public discernment and media accountability.
Through stakeholder engagement, media training and interactive educational formats, OIKOPLUS ensures that journalists have the tools they need to critically evaluate scientific claims. A multi-platform outreach strategy – including social media campaigns, explainer videos and workshops – helps translate complex findings into accessible content. By promoting responsible science communication, we aim to contribute to a more transparent and informed media ecosystem.
The [un]reliable science LinkedIn Campaign
This campaign highlights key insights, real-world examples, and practical guidance from the project — raising awareness, promoting accountability, and empowering policymakers, media professionals, and the public to recognise and challenge unreliable science in the media landscape.
The [un]reliable science Video Series
In this series, researchers explore what happens to scientific articles after they have been retracted — and why these articles are still cited, shared, and sometimes misused as sources in media and public discourse.
[UnSci #01] What’s a Retraction? (And Why COVID Made It Urgent)
What does it mean when a scientific article is retracted? On this video, Kim Holberg, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Turku, explains the concept of retraction — and why it became a hot topic during the COVID-19 pandemic.
[UnSci #02] The Idea Behind the “Unreliable Science” Project
How do retracted studies live on — and why does it matter? This video introduces the central idea of the Unreliable Science project, which explores the continued influence of withdrawn research on media, policy, and public understanding.
[UnSci #03] Why Study Retracted Science?
Why do retracted papers deserve serious attention? In this video, Mike Thelwall, Professor of Data Science at the University of Sheffield, outlines the objectives and broader relevance of the Unreliable Science project — from scientific integrity to the risks of misinformation in public discourse.
[UnSci #04] Scientific Retractions on Social Media
What defines reliable knowledge? Mike Thelwall, Professor of Data Science at the University of Sheffield, investigates how retracted research interacts with trust in science and public discourse on social media.
[UnSci #05] The Problem of Increasing Retractions
Retractions are on the rise — but why? This episode of the Unreliable Science video series investigates the growing number of withdrawn academic publications and what this trend tells us about science, transparency, and trust in research.
[UnSci #06] How Do Retracted Articles Become Unreliable Science?
A retracted study doesn’t vanish. Instead, it can live on in media, citations, and public imagination. In this video, Irini Katsirea, Reader in International Media Law at the University of Sheffield, explores how misinformation persists — and what makes retractions so resilient. From the Unreliable Science project.
[UnSci #07] Drowning in Information: How Retractions Get Lost
In today’s hyper-connected media landscape, retracted papers don’t just disappear. They linger. In video, Kim Holmberg, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Turku, explores how the overwhelming flood of information allows flawed research to persist — and why this matters more than ever. A contribution to the Unreliable Science series.
[UnSci #08] Why Checks for Retractions are Essential
When flawed studies are still being shared — who’s responsible? Scientists? Journalists? Platforms? In this video, Mike Thelwall, Professor of Data Science at the University of Sheffield, reflects on the shared duty to verify sources and the risks of overlooking retractions.