This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by RIER, D. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Versatile "Caveat" Section of an Epidemiology Paper

Managing Public and Private Risk

Bar-Ilan University, Israel

Are toxic-exposure epidemiologists influenced, when writing the "caveat" portion of their articles, by how the media, public, and courts might use their work? Qualitative interviews with 61 epidemiologists revealed that they relied on caveats to manage "public risk"—inappropriate use of their work by nonscientists. However, few considered caveats effective for this task. Caveats may be more important for managing professional risk, as subjects used caveats to preempt criticism, to advertise their credibility, to adhere to conventions, to hedge, and to deflect attention from flaws in their articles. The data bear implications for the definition of science, the demarcation of scientists from nonscientists, and the issue of scientists' responsibility.

Science Communication, Vol. 21, No. 1, 3-37 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/1075547099021001001


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. A. Rier Work Setting, Publication, and Scientific Responsibility Science Communication, June 1, 2003; 24(4): 420 - 457. [Abstract] [PDF]