In today’s world, the role of media has shifted significantly. Rather than being the primary source of information, the media now faces the challenge of determining how to add value to the information that is already widely available. This issue has become especially pressing in light of the current crisis, where lessons from the medical field can be invaluable.

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the effects of the open information ecosystem. Researchers are inundated with a flood of new studies that appear on preprint servers before undergoing peer review. These platforms encourage expert discussion on social media but come with the important warning that their findings should not be treated as verified information in news reports.

Most scientists I follow on Twitter appreciate the quick access to open data, allowing for rapid discussions about the significance and quality of research findings. However, there have been calls to restrict preprints, although these ideas have faced pushback from the scientific community.

The dissemination of low-quality information poses a significant challenge. For example, a poorly conducted study on hydroxychloroquine gained notoriety after being cited by influential figures. Fortunately, many scientists quickly identified and criticized the flaws in that research.

A more illustrative case arose from a study on SARS-CoV2 antibodies in Santa Clara County, California. The immediate response from experts highlighted various concerns, showcasing the rapid peer review process facilitated by online platforms. The respectful tone of their critiques, supported by evidence, exemplifies the scientific method in action.

To make the open information ecosystem effective, scientists are adapting quickly, necessitating several key components:

First, transparency is essential. The publication of SARS-CoV2 research is increasingly moving away from restrictive paywalls, exemplified by new EU initiatives for open access to pandemic-related studies.

Second, there is a pressing need for organization and discoverability of this vast amount of research. New indices and datasets have emerged to help categorize and summarize the flood of information.

Third, mechanisms for evaluating the quality of research are critical, and this is happening almost in real-time through medical social media. A study analyzed the first 239 COVID-19 papers, highlighting the need for effective peer review to combat “publication pollution.”

Fourth, it’s crucial to establish a system for evaluating the credibility of those offering expert opinions. As I curate my Twitter list of experts, their interactions reveal whom the community respects and trusts.

However, the intersection of science and individual reputation can create tension. For instance, Dr. Eric Feigl-Ding has garnered significant attention, but some scientists question his credentials, illustrating the complexities of public perception versus academic validation.

Despite the risk of insular thinking within academic circles, credentialing remains a vital part of maintaining credibility in science. In our current environment, it’s crucial to uphold established standards of expertise.

I advocate for journalists to rigorously vet their sources, ensuring they consult the most relevant experts. As my colleague Siva Vaidhyanathan notes, journalists should be more discerning in assessing who is qualified to inform the public.

Both scientists and journalists must improve their communication of scientific concepts. In collaboration with Connie Moon Sehat, we are working on establishing quality benchmarks for science news, enhancing the standards by which platforms evaluate content.

While scientists express concerns about public communication, it’s the journalists who must adapt to navigate this open information landscape effectively.

This is not a new issue in journalism or science. Historical perspectives reveal that the practice of peer review has evolved, tracing back to ancient times when figures like Cicero received editorial feedback. Such systems have always existed in various forms to ensure the quality of academic work.

In the current open information ecosystem, news is no longer simply delivered; it is already out there through multiple channels. Our role has shifted from gatekeepers to facilitators of information.

This transformation presents several challenges and opportunities for journalism:

First, we must work to enhance the accessibility of information, advocating for transparency from governments and organizations.

Second, organizing and making information easily discoverable is critical, building on initial efforts by platforms like Google.

Third, we need effective methods to assess and filter both credible information and misinformation.

Fourth, it’s essential to have clear criteria for evaluating experts and their insights.

Fifth, we must amplify the voices of qualified experts, providing context and verification within public discourse.

The challenge lies in identifying true expertise, particularly in fields where qualifications are less clear-cut. Additionally, as the value of academic expertise diminishes in some circles, it’s essential to uphold the integrity of credentialed voices.

Journalism should embrace a scientific approach, beginning with hypotheses and seeking evidence to validate or challenge them. This shift is necessary as we move away from the model of delivering finalized stories.

In the post-crisis economy, the luxury of providing completed narratives will fade alongside outdated business models. Instead, we must adapt to this new normal by contributing meaningfully to the open flow of information, or risk obsolescence.

UPDATE: Shortly after writing this, I witnessed a concerning instance where The New York Times published a contentious preprint without adequately covering opposing viewpoints. This highlights the importance of thorough editorial practices.

Special thanks to Drs. Gregg Gonsalves, Krutika Kuppalli, Angela Rasmussen, and Emma Hodcroft for their insights during our discussions about navigating the new information ecosystem.