image_pdf

The debate over whether social media platforms should be held accountable for the spread of misinformation is more intense than ever. As false claims proliferate at unprecedented speeds, the need to differentiate between hoaxes and evidence becomes vital. However, this is not just the responsibility of platforms or scientists—citizen engagement plays a crucial role in addressing this challenge.

Science itself is evolving to adapt to this new reality. The shift from traditional blind peer review to open peer review is a significant step. This approach allows any scientist in a relevant field to evaluate articles, either during or after publication. Pushing boundaries further, Dialogic Open Review introduces a groundbreaking model where citizens, alongside scientists, can contribute to the review process.

Currently, two citizen science platforms operate under this framework, focusing on education and gender. By registering on these platforms, individuals can submit scientifically valid arguments to confirm or refute claims, fostering transparency and inclusivity in scientific dialogue. These platforms invite citizens to submit posts, which remain open for 15 days to gather evidence. Participants can contribute arguments supported by scientific articles indexed in Scopus or Web of Science, or even draw from relevant everyday experiences. After this period, the evidence is evaluated, and each post is assigned to one of five categories:

  • Under Review: Posts in their initial 15-day evaluation period. Contributions during this phase help classify the post.
  • Scientific Evidence: Posts supported by at least three scientific articles indexed in Scopus or Web of Science, demonstrating robust evidence.
  • Hoax: Posts refuted by at least three scientific articles that clearly disprove the claim.
  • Needs More Evidence: Posts lacking sufficient support (fewer than three articles) to classify as evidence or hoax.
  • Scientific Controversy: Posts highlighting claims where no scientific consensus exists.

Even after classification, posts remain open for further contributions. As new evidence or research emerges, categories can be updated to reflect the latest advancements.

While the existing platforms focus on education and gender, this model holds potential for expansion into other critical areas in the future. By inviting all citizens to engage in evidence-based discussions, this approach bridges the gap between science and society, empowering communities to combat misinformation and build a more informed world.

Associate Professor at University of Granada

By Ana Burgués Freitas

Associate Professor at University of Granada