I have found this to be the case in the past. Luckily, I have the education and research abilities to be able to validate the content that I am getting in the highlighted box, but I could see how most people would take that information they receive in the box as fact and not question it.

I think that this is a very important distinction!

As someone who is jewish, reading that this is what pops up on autocomplete really is alarming to me. Search engines are making it seemingly easier to hold biased or hateful believes about specific minority groups that they might really know nothing about.

I just think there must have to be some external influences besides just the use of Google that would prompt him to type in "black on white crime". That is a very specific term to be aware of and sounds like he was in search of hearing very particular information that supports what he already believed about white supremacy.

You would think this is just common sense but I know of so many people that immediately read something and react

If this is the case then what sources can really be trusted if every source says certain things to make a profit?

I was taught to not trust easily and to ask questions so I do understand why people may believe that many things are equally untrustworthy.

fact-checking is very important nowadays because anything can appear to be real. I've definitely come across a good amount of articles and videos that I think are real at first but eventually find out that they contain fake information.

Reading this made me think of the one main newspaper in my hometown and the troubles they had from an emergence and popularity of new online stories. Many complained that the stories on the online newspaper site weren't being produced as fast as other online stories. What they didn't realize at the time is that they were given false information, and the worst part is that many do not follow up on stories to check credibility and accuracy. Figuring out the truth and the real stories takes time and our culture needs to learn how to slow down and value the effort required in producing true news stories.

I think this is a great goal to have, and definitely necessary. It is so hard to know if you are reading the full truth, so how are we as a society going to be able to be well informed without something like this in place?

I find it disheartening that we have reached a period in time, at which, the truth is no longer as popular or widely believed as a hoax or rumor. How are we ever suppose to really know the truth?

I think this speaks to my prior comment about the importance of the narrative and the role this plays in spreading fake news. In my opinion, this type of controversial narrative is more likely to get attention in today's society.

In a way this makes sense to me. I am more likely to read a story that is shared by one of my friends on Facebook or Twitter than I am to read a story from an email that was sent to me by the NY times as an ad because I perceive this as them pushing out their own content.

I am curious if this is because of the narrative/entertainment aspect of these types of stories or if it is another reason?

I think this is an unfortunate reality that has taken over our mindsets to share fake news. It is so easy to share fake news because we are not educated well enough on how to catch the red flags of fake news.

Or one actually wants to reverse the trend?

This is definitely true. If you have a headline that can make someone cry, get excited, or is just relatable, in a sense it will spread a lot more quickly.

I am a big time twitter user and this is very true. Sharing falsehoods the majority of the time produces more likes and retweets. Individuals on twitter want to be famous and get their name out there and if it means sharing a false story they are willing to do it along with arguing about it for more attention.

Fake news always has a better story because it is fake. We want the juicy stories and real media isn't always as interesting.

I think with all social media, especially twitter, we want everything to be fast. We want to be able to read a headline of two lines and know exactly what happened and as long as that headline grabs our attention we absent-mindedly share that information. Fake news travels faster because it's more interesting and grabs more attention. On twitter, the majority of individuals are on there for laughs and gossip. It takes 2 seconds to read a tweet or a headline and it takes an additional second to like or retweet it. Everyone just wants fast paced media and stories.

Could information still be fake even if it is from a verified author who is sophisticated? Now a days, anyone can become verified on twitter.

I have fallen into this so many times where a website can look reputable but have just blatantly false information on it

this is what I was just thinking! It seems like you can make fake news as wild and more marvelous than the truth

This is very interesting because you would think people would want to use these new and sophisticated social media platforms in order to spread accurate news to people who might be using that platform as the only method of receiving any news update

I think this sort of relates back to the article that was posted about the self driving ubers- what can we trust technology to do for us and how well can it do it? Better than us?

this is very interesting to me considering that false information on politics probably can lead to some pretty severe consequences.

I think this is very well stated considering that every person who has been on social media has probably seen or read some kind of tabloid that turned out not to be true

True. There are standard headlines then there are fake news headlines which appease to our inclination to look for shocking news articles

It's probably because fake news hinges on being extreme in their "reporting" and so fake news can sometimes induce greater reactions

So interesting. My friends and I talk all the time about how randomly things go viral. Posts on twitter made by normal people with less than a 1000 followers can sometimes reach thousands of people in a matter of days; this has always been a concept which has perplexed me!

I think this is what incentivizes people to put fake news above credible information. The drive for "retweets". "likes", "shares", and just general popularity creates this impulse wit users to do whatever necessary to stay relevant on his/her platform. This is of course a huge disservice to the general public who relies on a lot of social media sites for daily information.

I am not an avid Twitter user, but I know that some users will circulate false information simply to draw attention to their account.

I think this can be said for all content in the media.

Think this is a really good question that they asked and as a result it clearly made the study more accurate. We should all ask these hard questions when doing research.

I see this being true in that fake news does not only impact politics, but also culture topics as well. With that being said, it is a problem that it is so widespread and dominant in basically all information.

This is a sad reality that it is in our human nature to spread falsehoods. I think that this is a realization that many would not want to come to, but it is one that needs to be stated. In making this fact more known it could make society as a whole be more aware of what we share and spread.

This is an interesting point. I think its very easy to believe something that falls in line with the beliefs you already hold. I think people will much more readily accept news that allows them to stay complicit with their bias.

Well stated. The truth often cannot prevail when information outlets are so saturated with fake news reports. Its disheartening to think that even trusted journalistic sources with a long history of credibility are falling under the umbrella of fake news. I think the best way to ensure accuracy in information attained is by diversifying your sources!

The amplification of falsehood seems to be a responsibility that falls on the consumer, but how the initial falsehood is propagated seems like the responsibility of news sites that fail to be objective in their journalism, no?

Matches my initial hypothesis!

I would imagine that part of this lies in the psychology of emotion. If something is almost real enough not to seem fake, it makes sense that it would trigger a subconscious emotional reaction, and desire to investigate the claim in a that continues to trigger this kind of reaction, than seek the truth.

I just tried this in google to see what would come up and interestingly enough, none of the top results were the ones listed here. The first one was "black on white vans"

"read the Wikipedia article"...

It irritates me so much that his defense team even considered this a sound argument. We as people get tons of information thrown at us daily, good and bad. Its up to us to filter it out, decipher the good from the bad, and ultimately use our own psyche and judgment to shape our character. Sure Dylan Roof may have been exposed to white supremacist propaganda online, but it was his decision to continue the searches, to let the searches inform his violent and disgusting decision to murder black church members and for that, he is fully accountable for his actions.

This is still such a chilling sentence to read out loud.

Google, in a way, does enable the spread of extremist propaganda, and enabling someone who is mentally vulnerable to read and see certain things may cause them to become obsessed and act irrationally.

This is terrifying!! Its crazy to believe that Google could potentially be enabling the crazy and extremes to become even crazier and more extreme. Sometimes to much knowledge at your disposal is dangerous.

I think this may be a good idea but also would there just be another way to spread hate speech. I feel like once it stops in one area individuals who still want to get their point across will find a way to do it.

This is definitely not the way to think about searches because a lot of the times the top searches are sponsored.

Just like we learned last week, fake news travels very quickly on social media, so this makes a lot of sense.

I also think this would be a problem in society because some would call this censorship....

I love how the attorney places the blame on the internet. Sure, he saw hate on the internet but it was his own actions that put him in that situation. The internet is just a platform where information is held.

this is absolutely fascinating- i mean even if this isnt what you were going to search in the first place it has to have an effect on you at least subconsciously if not more

makes you want to really really think twice about some of the things that we are reading on the internet everyday....

I'm curious about how they are currently regulated. If google is coming up with unique algorithms to filter search results, they are already regulated.

I think this may be the case sometimes but I think it is also important to look at the rationale behind why people think the stuff listed higher up is true. In many cases, convenience is the answer. If I don't have time to look into something, I usually go with the answer at the top of the page not because I think it is more valuable than the answer or source at the bottom of the page but because I don't have time to read through all of the sources.

I think this point is getting at an interesting debate about what should be monitored and whether or not freedom of speech comes into play here.

I think Google really needs to focus on amending its autocomplete results and base it not only on popularity of search, but also take into consideration the implications of the results so stereotypes won't be fed/implanted into peoples minds e.g. "are muslims bad."

This goes back to the tutorials by Mike Caulfield, who compared two sources, with one being a credible source and the other being an ill-funded conservative group. We can assume that Roof was consumed with information that came from a perspective that originates racial division, hence his radical ideologies.

This is an example of a negative consequence of algorithms working in society.

This relates to the previous article for this week about search engines trying to find the best answer and using the most popular. Here, it is people who are assuming that what is at the top is the best and the most correct. However, as we know from the previous article and what the author is saying here, this is not the case.

so true and I am guilty of that too, but there lies the problem!

You can't eliminate freedom of speech, however, there should be a way that google can mediate what comes up at the top of the search engine and eliminate violent propganda.

So when the public notices the autocomplete results are hateful, Google decides to take action? Why is this not being filtered in the first place!

I think this is why Google needs a team of human editors- to filter out all the hate speech and harsh language from appearing automatically.

It baffles me to think that his motives for the mass shooting were found through using Wikipedia and Google. I use both search engines almost every day, and it is disturbing to think individuals use these sources to plan horrendous crimes. But it makes me think how this can ever be stopped, considering the news is out there for the public and it will always been on the internet.

Okay that's scary to think about...

Well put, honestly I feel like some people look for life advice on google.

Google, RELEASE YOUR SECRETS! ;)

Here's the issue with algorithms, they can categorizing information based on what is known and what can be grouped, but when someone types a "fake story" or otherwise false info into a search engine, the algorithms in place will make an attempt to group this info into a category that it doesn't belong to (hopefully I have a decent understanding of how algorithms work) and this is an issue because when someone receives an answer for a false search, it makes it easier for them to believe the false info.

This is an interesting statement since it was previously mentioned that google is pushing for more AI and less human editorial involvement. I understand that AI would make less mistakes, but it also would not be as subjective.

I don't like the wording "most of the time". That is so dangerous because even if something is accurate 99.999% of the time, there is still that small percent of the time that it could be wrong, and all it takes to ruin your credibility is one wrong statement or fact.

I was unaware of how unregulated this feature is. I generally assumed it was factual and had been checked, which is really dangerous on my part.

If google can only show you information that exists on the web then we need to find a way for more information to be accessible, if that is possible.

These are definitely two different things but somehow google and other search engines have found a way to correlate them.

I think this is a very important statement. We all just kind of assume that google has the correct answer because it's google. We just want information to be quick and correct and are gullible in that nature.

google is really good at matching texts to the questions asked but think about how nice it would be if google could also not just give us texts with our key words in it but ones that were also reliable? that would be a great world and papers would be nice and easy to write

I have often found myself reading these little blurbs and taking them as gospel- it is sort of a shame how we have so information but many of us (me included sometimes) are too lazy to even click the link to figure out if we have it right

I think this relates to some of the articles we read last week about how fake news gets more attention than real news. I think the bottom line here is that what is being talked about most is what gets circulated and this is a perfect example.

Now that I read this, it is all making sense! Sometimes I get great answers from google and sometimes they make no sense.

This is a more accurate depiction of Google rather than this idea that it is a hub of accurate and complete information - I've noticed that many of my more ambiguous queries just match the body of text as closely as possible rather than answer the question.

True. Not everything on Google is correct, as many fake sites exist. We need to be cautious of what we deem reliable information.

It makes me wonder whether these algorithms hold a bias (political, social etc.) as oftentimes when we google we take the first answer and move on rather than scrolling for an alternative answer that we think is right.

Best and most popular are not the same. Therefore, this means that picking the top result and using it as the best answer is not always going to be the same either.

This is important to emphasize, SUPPOSED TO. These search engines put out a lot of information and are supposed to be correct, but they are not always. The biggest problem with this is that most people believe everything Google puts out. Furthermore, as kids are becoming more reliant on these devices like the Amazon Alexa, they will only go to those search engines when they have a question and will take that answer as fact and never question it. Huge issue in my opinion.

This raises the question of who is to blame: Google for displaying the articles or the users for not fact checking the articles presented?

Google displays what it thinks is the answer we are looking for when we search a question based off an algorithm. Too often we take this answer at face value and move on!

Seems like a pretty essential thing Google should have. A group that fact checks and edits out all the wrong information and fake news out there.

I know I personally think Google has all the answers, but half the time there are multiple answers to questions and I need to be more aware to read farther down the google search list then just stopped at the top after the blurb.

I have personally fallen trap to just reading these Google blurbs when I quickly searching things on google. I need to be more aware that these are not always the most reliable answers.

I think some people, like my mother lol, have genuine faith in many news articles and don't think twice about whether its necessary to vet the source. That's the scary part, some people aren't even trying to be a bad "net citizen", its just hard to believe (especially for older generations) that articles can be posted for the sheer purpose of profit or scam than to actually inform the public.

That is a good point. So often I use time as an excuse for not fact checking, but this article really takes away the option to do that.

I think this is such an excellent point to make. I never think about fact checking things I share before sharing them, but in a way, it is my duty to make sure the information is credible. Once i repost articles or information, I am essentially endorsing them, so if they are false, that is a negative reflection on me.

I think this step is crucial and something that I will try to do from now on when I post something online. I belief that if I explain the way that I accurately verified the source I am sharing, others will be more likely to either take the time to read the article, and/or have a more open mind when reading the material without having to be a cynical of the information being fake from the start.

I totally agree that this is easy, important, and something we should be doing to contribute positively to society. However, I think of majority of the time I am reading news which is on my phone when I am walking to class, or sitting on the train during summers, and I know myself well enough to say that unfortunately, I won't be looking up apa.org on my phone and fact checking. However, I do think it is something I should be doing. My question is how do we motivate people to do this?

If we continue to share things without fact checking them we are just as much a part of the problem because we are helping in the spread of false information.

I think as a society we are lazy and gullible. If something is written as an article, we just believe it because as a society we have started to lose skepticism and we believe everything that we see. We have to start believing things with a grain of salt. It takes a short amount of time to fact check articles but living in a fast paced society, we want everything at the snap of a finger and we just expect it to be true.

I think this is great to make something that seems so large and unapproachable as fact checking is so few steps! for the people who like to share things on social media this is a really great way to make sure you aren't part of the propagation of fake news

I completely agree! My dad had taught me this lesson when I stated something I read at face value, and explained that just because we are supposed to be able to trust information we read, we have to be sure we can stand behind that information if we are will to spread it, and fully believe in its source.

At the end of the day, I think we're all just too lazy to go through these formal checks. Social media is a dynamic platform, and we all want to share information while it's hot and trending; taking 30-90 seconds out the day to verify the information is a habit I don't think will catch on anytime soon.

This shows another way that we as students, as well as researchers, can help create a better online environment. I am really glad that I know how to do this and I think if other students came to know this it would be greatly beneficial.

Very true...

I think this is interesting because a lot of people in our generation constantly share articles and content on Facebook without actually checking the accuracy of what is being reported. Half the time it is just fake news... Therefore we need to learn how to be good citizens and censor the articles we share

Its so crazy how much extra work is now required to attain accurate information. We can have a discussion on access regarding this topic too because not everyone has the time to commit to researching the validity of a particular news article. It's hard enough to stay up to date with current events, there's an extra layer of obstacles at play when we have to allocate time and effort into making sure we're up to date on accurate information because of the prevalence of fake news.

I also like that a lot of email platforms filter out these messages in our spam folder. There's also a section on gmail called "important" that acts as a further filter system which I appreciate.

This is a good beginning step. I do think limiting the profit these fake news sites can make will help crack down on them but I agree with @ianikm15, the problem is when multiple people get their hands on these sites and begin to send it to the people they know. This is more of a consumer driven issue though cause I cant't imagine a way Google or Facebook can prevent the sharing of posts.

This is so true. fake news is nothing new, the speed at which it gets across populations is the new phenomena.

I feel like I hear this from Trump all the time, and I never know what he means when he says "very credible sources". I hate that people use this term and automatically assume it will justify whatever they are saying. I find something to be less credible when someone says it comes from a credible source, but then fails to name that source.

This quote intrigues me because I have never thought of fake news in this way. I just assumed all fake news was the same and bad, but it is interesting to hear it categorized and differentiated

I feel like many people probably didn't read this all the way through (I know I am guilty of this at times like I mentioned earlier) which means that the fact that the quote is fake does not even register with people.

I think the nature in which we read news today (short stories, 24/7 news cycle, emails like the skimm) foster a culture which doesn't give us the time to be skeptical of fake news. I often find myself reading a few sentences of an article and then sending it along because I don't have time to read the whole thing and think it is interesting. This is problematic because I haven't had the time to check the quality and validity of the source I am sending.

While this is a good first step, it does not prevent people from sharing fake news to others that they are friends with when they share a post.

Very important note- to always read beyond the headline to ensure the information is correct and fact checked.

Fake news and propaganda has been around for a while; however, it is now more prevalent with the tools available to widely share news faster.

I fall into this one all of the time- you think you have found a juicy new piece of news but it is actually from years ago

this one is interesting because I have really done all the other ones to ensure a source is credible but I do not frequently click on linked articles

I am one of the worst about click bait! Often the headlines catch you but then the story isnt what yo thought it would be or it takes so long to read because you have to click through ads that you never finish it.

To me this seems fairly obvious but I guess that since we have come a lot further since 2008

I fall into this all the time- things that are not true get sent to into group messages from twitter and it is the only information you see at all on that specific event and are left confused about its validity

This seems dangerous as I usually look if the source is credible without looking any further as to whether the information corroborates

This is often a small detail that I tend to overlook since my primary objective is to read the content of the article

This is so true! The other day on Facebook, I saw a relative post about a satirical article on the Onion........ being outraged by a story about millennials that merely fed into that relatives confirmation bias, not realizing the Onion is not a genuine news site.

It is scary how few people read beyond the headline. This is obvious in the comments section of the various news articles posted to Facebook, where people ask questions or state their opinions on something that, if they actually even clicked on the article, they would likely immediately retract.

This is a whole other problem in itself. Having people know something is fake but still sharing it because they want to not only encourages fake news, but it also perpetuates it for those readers that do not do these fact checking things.

I find it so crazy that websites go to such lengths to make them appear real. Additionally, I have never really thought about doing any of these things when reading any type of news or article that is shared that I end up reading. Really fascinating insight.

I do agree with this point. We must have certain sources and people that we completely trust, but again, I do not think it is a bad thing to be picky about who we decide to trust.

I understand the danger of being too skeptical about everything, but in some ways I think that may be better than the alternative. If you trust everything then you overexpose yourself. While it is necessary to recognize what you should and should not trust, I don't think its a bad thing to be hesitant and skeptical before fully buying into what the author is preaching.

I agree with much of what the author has to say but I also believe that he is making some hasty generalizations about "students" as a whole. I agree that our generation has become a bit less trusting of certain sources, but from my experience, I do not necessarily feel that students have mostly decided not to trust anything at all. However, overall this was still a very interesting read.

I think this is very well stated and also frightening. I think it perfectly exemplifies why fake news gets spread more easily than real news (the previous article we just read), the answer is that we have the opportunity to push content and choose what we want which means anything can be ignored!

I think this speaks to the way we have been taught in school to debate and question everything. Also, I think we have been taught about the importance of perspective a lot. While one person might think something is taken completely out of context because of their background or opinion, I may think it is in context because of my background and opinion.

It is very important to do research on researchers to see if they have any connection to different businesses and if they are knowledgeable in their said field. For example, if we think about Dr. Phil most of us think that he is a medical doctor like a psychiatrist but he actually only has a PhD in clinical psychology. It is very important to research individuals because it could very easily be fake news.

I learned a lot about this particularly in my health statistics class. Everything is a business and their job is to push their product in any capacity that they can. Some businesses even hire researchers that will highly rate their products in exchange for money. You have to question everything, researchers and products because with money and privilege businesses can bamboozle consumers.

For me, in the sciences we have been taught to question everything. Curiosity and skepticism are key in creating new knowledge. So in my opinion, I think not trusting is a viable option.

I think we are taught that almost everyhting off the internet is going to in some way be incorrect- which is why despite the 34 citations people are still thinking it might be a no go

but this is sort of what we are trained to do in school- look at everything critically because someone probably has some reason for saying what they do. Which when put in this context i am able to see that it is a shame that we cannot come to trust any sources

Profit seeking motives are a huge culprit for the spread of fake news. It's really hard to figure out who or what to trust as a consumer.

Its funny that the author mentions being a "proud papa" when a student notices this. My dad had always taught to me to question who and where I am getting information from, by example. If he found an interesting statistic cited in the paper, he would go online to look into it further to see how credible the researchers were and the study they conducted, before accepting a statistic at face value.

I think what this article uncovers is that the level of credibility we attribute to a source can be contingent upon our personal beliefs, values, and preference which suggests that we can't necessarily produce or consume information that is universally accepted.

I have never really thought about this and if I as a student do this myself. However, I think this article makes good points on how to evaluate your trust in sources and why it is beneficial. I also think the advice here to think about what our best option for spending that trust is and why is important as well as worthwhile.

After taking News Literacy and other journalism classes I have learned the multiple ways news organizations use propaganda and fake news to alter our perception of things. There is biases in almost everything we read and it is our duty as individuals to educate our selfs to catch the red flags and bias in reporting. Therefore, I do not give my trust out to multiple news sources but rather reference multiple news outlets and sources when reading about one event or topic in the news.

Such good points. Media literacy is such a complicated issue, with so many entities bearing so much responsibility. The media churn machine, in which stories are packaged and repackaged, spun and re-spun, shared and re-shared, is just so volatile. We expect headlines to be more objective, but something as small as a biased headline can have tremendous ripple effects.

Oh gosh, reading beyond the headline. Yes, this is truly an advanced skill for many folks. :)

I think it depends on the department, but in general, there are more male faculty--at least at Wake. Here are the most recent numbers: https://prod.wp.cdn.aws.wfu.edu/sites/202/2018/10/2017_2018_p35.pdf

Wow, this is such a valuable insight. Within our system, profit is a primary motivator, but the sustaining factor isn't profit, it's inequality. Thinking that says "I paid for it, so why should you get it for free?"

Although some researchers may not be aware that they are skewing their results, I think that this is a reflection of the bias and desire to produce a drug that will make the company a lot of money. Success in this business seems to be reflected based on the amount of money that is made from the drug rather or more stronger than the benefits that patients could experience. This system is so flawed, but it is also so hard to find the right solution. The production of new drugs is so important, so how do we take out this factor of financial benefit?

The fact that pharmaceutical companies are able to influence the use and production of new drugs with capitalist motives is concerning. Not only are the drug companies influencing research and production of research, but they are also influencing the use of the drugs by influencing the doctors. Doctors are often taken to nice dinners, etc. by pharmaceutical companies so that they can convince them to use their new drug. I think that drug companies have way too much influence due to capitalist means, which could put many in harm.

this is where information access becomes a crucial part of this paper and relates to our classes discussion as a whole!

hopefully this would make it so that people who are looking critically at drugs are able to see correlations between negative side effects that are frequently swept under the rug until it is too obvious that it is a problem.

it is so incredibly concerning that one is able to put this much spin on something as important as drug research and development- it seems that there needs to be more in place in terms of monitoring and searching for these biases.

We discussed pharmaceutical companies in my bioethics class as well- I had no idea before that there was so much corruption within these big companies that everyone relies on to give them adequate care.

This must be a solution to this problem! We simply cannot accept results that are skewed so greatly, especially when it comes to people's health and wellbeing. There is nothing more valuable and sacred than a person's health, and the fact that we are toying with results that can directly harm the public is so disheartening.

The fact that drugmakers and researchers are willing to put people's health a risk in exchange for a monetary gain is simply horrifying. Also, warning signs should never be overlooked especially with a risk as dangerous as a greater risk for heart attack.

Yes, yes, and yes. Transparency is not too much to ask for when it comes to things going into our bodies.

This is a good one. Its like asking politicians to release their tax returns. If they vehemently refuse you know something's up.

Surprise surprise.

This is an especially important point because it shows just how dangerous the lack of oversight on the pharmaceutical industry really is. Bias exists, we know this as readers, but of course the corruption is carried out under the table so no one actually knows which drugs are reliable and which are not. At least not until real life cases of dangerous side effects start to arise, by which point its essentially too late.

this is exactly what I was trying to get at with my earlier annotation where I pointed out how data can say anything you want it to say. This is of course harmful most to consumers, we need to be hyperaware of all the information that exists for anything that is marketed to us; especial regarding medicine since the cost can sometimes be one's life.

There needs to be more oversight (government or otherwise) for how pharma companies market their drugs to consumers.

On the surface this sounds like a great thing, who wouldn't want researches to get as much funding as possible in order to continue finding innovative ways to improve medical care. However, with the amount of corruption and fraud that characterizes this industry, I am very weary that research funding by pharma companies has exceeded what the National Institute of Health spends.

I think this should be illegal. In journalism you're not allowed to pay the people you interview, this is done so that the information presented can be devoid of as much bias as possible and this should be the case for the researchers publishing on these drugs.

This is so ridiculous! The entire pharmaceutical industry has become this huge enterprise centered around maximizing profits rather than producing drugs that can help people. The price of insulin in the United States is many times more expensive than any other developed nation in the world. People are dying because they're having to ration their insulin intake simply because they cannot afford the proper dosage.

In my Econometrics class, we talked a lot about how data can say virtually anything you want it to say. My professor would implore us to be especially vigilant with where we gather information and to make sure to diversity our sources, but honestly, when reputable scientists and publications can publish bogus research like this its really disheartening.

We definitely need to work to restore trust in the pharmaceutical industry but the only way, would be to limit the privileges of big companies and there doesn't seem like a valid way to do that at this moment.

This is a very true statement. Research and statistics can be manipulated in many ways to get desired outcomes. There needs to be some sort of system in place to hold individuals who are manipulating science accountable. If we think about the anti vaccination example, a researcher manipulated data to make that claim and individuals are still holding on to that idea today, even though it has been proven false. Researchers have a lot of power and privilege and they affect society in a lot of ways and they need to be held accountable.

This is something that we discussed in my Health Statistics course. If we are basing the validity of experiments off of statistics, there's no way to tell if the statistics were manipulated for favorable outcomes. Also, correlation does not mean causation.

Money is becoming way more important than the safety of individuals. How can researchers report favorably for a drug that can potentially kill individuals just for money?

This goes back to privilege. Companies who have an exponential amount of money have the ability to hire researchers to "research" their product. If researchers are getting paid to give a favorable report of certain drugs then they are going to do just that.

I think that this is very interesting and should be related to the article about global scholarly communication. Not only is the global north dominating the conversation, but the global northern men. Women are having a hard time when in comes to having a voice in knowledge production in similar ways to those from the global south

I think that this is a result of certain jobs being seen as "feminine" and "masculine." I think that biological and mathematical sciences have been seen as more "masculine," which could explain the under-representation of women in this field.

I would be interested to see the timing of when the increase occurred (if it was slowly over time and/or after large social changes such as around 1970 when it was prohibited for employers to discriminate based on sex).

this is interesting that women are more focused on the human interaction portion of academe

similar to my comment on examining only female dominated fields of work! it shows that women are still sort of locked in certain spheres of work!

this is wild to me! women deserve to get the bargaining power in all fields of work- to have an equal chance with men!

everyone should check out the book Lean In by Sheryl Sandberg! It encourages women to lean in to the table instead of leaning out from the conversation in the workplace- negotiating for yourself!

I love this idea for research- that they did not even stick to just typically female associated fields of work- it is important to understand who is studying what before we could adjust to compensate for these differences

I did a project on women in leadership roles (mostly female CEOs) but it is interesting that it is mentioned that publishing buys tenure, promotions, and success (you can tell sort of by where this article is going men and women will not be equal)

This is a very promising statistic. I would love to know how much it will go up form 2010 to 2020. I think it is also a good sign that when using the newest formats of MLA and APA that you abbreviate the first name of the author (in the citation) in order to eliminate any sort of gender bias.

Considering this article was written seven years ago, I would love to see how things have changed/progressed in this time. Would be nice to see a follow up article of sorts.

This was very reassuring to read. I'm glad the author can confidently speak to the progress that has been made thus far. There is, however, still a long way to go.

Many women experience this in so many different industries. I know many argue that the gender wage gap is in part due to the fact that many women are less experienced in negotiating salaries. The confidence factor has a lot to do with it!

This is something completely new to me. I did not know this much weight was placed on author order so this was an interesting part to read.

This is the kind of compounding effect I touched on in my previous annotation. A person pursuing a career in academia has to have a few publishing credits under their belt in order to progress in their career. If this individual wants to pursue a tenure track in higher ed. having several published journals is almost imperative, so this inequality is bigger than just the publication world.

This was really nice to read because seldom is this ever the case, I'm glad they found value in the research proposal made by Ms. Jacquet.

This is very well put. There are so many compounding results from getting published and the gender gap that exists with this level of "achievement" manifests in all sorts of arenas.

Stem fields are primarily made up with men. I feel this too in my classes.

On campus if you look at the majority of science professors, they're males. Men are given a privilege and women continually face bias.

This is a big problem in academia. Even the name placing on a published article can alter your chances of a job in academia. This isn't particularly fair but this is how it works.

This is kind of the point that I brought up in my last annotation. To get jobs in academia you have to be published a certain amount of times just to prove yourself.

I've been hearing a lot that department chairs, especially in the social sciences, hire professors based on if they think that they will publish books and articles. I remember eating lunch with new candidates for one department here at Wake Forest, and there was a very competitive candidate that was graduating from a very well known university but they didn't pick her because they didn't believe she would produce the most research. I think it is disheartening that we base jobs on their research productivity, instead of potential but this is how academia works.

This is extremely important because if the conversation is dominated by the global north, then the knowledge that is produced "globally" will just be a reflection of the global northern thought and will diminish the thought of the global south. This idea of global knowledge will just result in diminished ideals and will allow the global north to further dominate knowledge production.

I think that this statement brings to light the flaws in the system of research and knowledge production. Knowledge production should not be a result of people conforming to the system and doing whatever they can to be heard, but rather a result of people listening to shared experiences. There has to be a way to validate knowledge production and not only discrimination impacts who gets heard, but also the western journal companies (which are not mutually exclusive).

this is something I have never really thought about though- the colonization of scholarly research and conversation

i think this is such a huge problem in almost every field of study- the domination of the north over the south- it creates this one way and extremely limiting flow of thought

This is very sad- just because work does not come from the wester world or north America does not mean that work is not valid or useful- we are simply denying the use of good and valid thought based on who it is coming from.

this clearly shows that these topics are not "fringe" if more than half of the people are leaving the room

perhaps working to integrate these other knowledge traditions would lead to a more interesting application of knowledge principles.Allowing these people that make the group diverse to actually have part in the conversation could greatly increase our ability to generate new thought.

I think this is a really wise idea for a variety of reasons. First of all, as the author previously stated, if you are a researcher from somewhere far outside the US you have to travel long and far just to attend the conference (meaning more attendees will be from the US leading to less diversity in conversation and viewpoints). Also, the gesture to have one of these meetings in a place like Dhaka or Lilongwe I think can have a big impact on the research community and school of thought as well.

I like how Hathcock mentions here the need for recognition of the damages left behind long after the end of colonial rule. A lot of our institutions especially in academia, are rooted in racial authority.

This is a very saddening reality. Only recognizing western work inherently de-values the minds of non-western persons.

This is such a palpable statement. I think a lot of what we consider scholarly conversation is centered around one school of thought, one in which not everyone involved feels represented or even well informed about. I think about how history itself is written by the "victors", and how many important stories are lost to time because a vast majority of people were not afforded the opportunity to voice their truth. Similarly, scholarly discourse can sometimes leave out the topics, figures, or historical events that are important to many but not recognized as much by the writers of our history books. Diversity is important both through the voices in the room, as well as the topics discussed