Why does it seem like “forever chemicals” are everywhere in the news when so much of the science never breaks through at all? PFAS, the shorthand for a wide family of persistent chemicals, show up in everyday conversations and consumer worries, from nonstick cookware to the broader question of what these compounds might mean for human health. The steady drumbeat of new findings can create the impression that the public is seeing the full picture.
A closer look suggests the opposite. Even as journalists and outlets try to track developments, a large share of research remains largely invisible beyond academic circles. That gap, between what scientists publish and what the public actually encounters, sits at the center of a study that set out to measure how PFAS research travels.
The paper, published July 18, 2023 in Environmental Health, was led by researchers at the Green Science Policy Institute in Berkeley, California. Their goal was not to evaluate PFAS harms in a new way, but to examine how PFAS-and-health findings are communicated, both to the public and within scholarly ecosystems, and to offer practical guidance for researchers who want their work to be noticed.
The study that measured media attention
To do that, the researchers assembled a defined set of publications: peer-reviewed epidemiological studies focused on PFAS and human health, published from 2018 through 2020 and indexed in the PFAS-Tox Database. In total, they reviewed 273 studies, then assessed a range of characteristics that could influence how far each paper traveled outside its journal home.
They examined whether a press release existed, whether the study was open access, and how readable the press release or abstract was. They also tracked publication details such as the journal, sample size, and the day of the week a study appeared. Alongside those factors, the team incorporated signals of academic and public uptake, including scholarly citations and each paper’s Altmetric Attention Score, a metric used to gauge how much media and online attention research attracts.
The results landed with a jolt. Only 6.2 percent of all papers analyzed had a press release, and even among papers described as “significant,” the share with a press release reached just 7.8 percent. In the researchers’ assessment, the presence of a press release was the single strongest driver of media attention by a wide margin, outweighing the other variables they tracked.
What helps research get covered, and what the authors recommend
The patterns were consistent in ways that will feel familiar to anyone who has tried to translate research into news. Studies paired with clearer, more readable abstracts and press materials drew more attention, and timing mattered as well. When a press release appeared closer to the publication date of the study, the work tended to receive more coverage than research introduced more slowly or without coordinated outreach.
The contrast for studies without press releases was stark. Those papers generally saw little, if any, media pickup. As lead author Rebecca Fuoco put it in a statement shared with Green Matters, it is discouraging that only a narrow slice of this science reaches the public, while studies reporting strong associations between PFAS exposure and serious harms, including preterm birth and cancer, often fail to register widely. Research that stays tucked inside journals, she emphasized, has limited reach and therefore limited impact.
Altmetric Attention Scores helped quantify just how large the visibility gap can be. According to the researchers, papers supported by a press release received about 20 times more media attention than papers that were not. The team also found that higher scholarly citation counts moved in a positive relationship with factors such as media coverage, the presence of a press release, and open-access availability.
Even the publishing calendar showed an effect. Studies released on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays attracted more attention than those appearing at other times, a pattern the authors linked to typical newsroom staffing and workflow on weekdays compared with weekends. The speed of outreach mattered, too, with quicker posting of press materials after publication associated with stronger coverage, likely because editors judge recency as part of what makes research timely.
From there, the study shifted into recommendations aimed at narrowing the communication gap. Co-author Linda Birnbaum urged scientists and institutions to treat media outreach as a meaningful part of the research process, arguing that researchers hold information that can shape policy, medical practices, and industry innovation, and that it is their responsibility to help unlock that potential by sharing findings broadly.
At the practical level, the authors first encouraged researchers to consult with their institution’s press office or communications experts to decide whether a press release is warranted, noting that not every paper needs one. When PR professionals determine a release could help, the study recommends a professional press strategy, sharing the release with journalists under embargo before publication, asking journals to schedule publication earlier in the workweek, improving the readability of abstracts for non-specialists, and publishing open access so readers can actually reach the work. The Green Science Policy Institute also maintains a communications strategy resource page with templates, videos, and guidance intended to help researchers promote their findings more effectively.
