Let’s Start Tracking Misleading Press Releases About Scientific Findings

I think that evolutionary psychology might be worse, but perhaps that's because serious scientists actually care about nanotechnology and its related fields.

Does anyone think we can all agree on which social science headlines are misleading, and which ones are unbiased summaries of the facts?

I think there is in one site a problem with the press business model. People do not pay most of the time for the information they read, so journals are not considered anymore exactly a public service but an investment for funds or controlled by debt and governments. In the other side there is the politics of gross investment in R&D for economic growth and a new diplomacy of rankings about everything education, transparency, business friendly policies to attract investors. The problem as I see it is not in the excesses of the system but in the system of knowledge economy, as we know it. As long as you convert intangible assets in into a patent of so you can speculate with it in the financial economy. Anyway, an interesting approach I've seen lately is sites like theconversation where real experts write about their field, besides every post includes a release statement about their personal involvement, and conflicting interests on the subject. Also this link about the technology of measurement is interesting https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-10-20/rank-has-...

"The basis of framing theory is that the media focuses attention on certain events and then places them within a field of meaning." source: http://masscommtheory.com/theory-overviews/framing-theory/ Media twists these findings to frame them either in their own interest or to have more visits with polemic titles. But rankings based in scientific measurements might also make use of that to get their results published in the media. I don't mean to undervalue scientific work at all. But the instrumentation of it not for purposes other than scientific.

I hope by tracking you mean tying it back to who initiated the misleading article. Not just who wrote it but who paid for it and to what gain. Then once a year publish a chart showing the top ten sources ,and their most published topics/titles of misleading articles, from source to publication.