Paper Title: Scrolling through science: how accurate is science content on TikTok

Author(s) and Year: Ricardo Morais & Clara Eloïse Fernandes, 2026

Journal: Journal of Science Communication (open access)

TL;DR: Morais and Fernandes’ study focused on the transparency of scientific content and who is responsible for its accuracy. While many creators have relevant education, the content itself often oversimplifies facts or even falls short due to the absence of proper citations and verifiable sources. This shifts responsibility to the viewer, and raises a broader question: who should be accountable—the creators, the audiences, or the platform?

Why I chose this paper: TikTok is traditionally considered entertainment, but some people take everything they see in videos seriously and implement new knowledge into their lives. I work in the medical and health fields, and the algorithm often brings me content that contains vague, inaccurate, and even false information. If viewers perceive these facts as truth, they can directly harm their health. I wanted to understand how and by whom scientific content is created, and how it can be more accurate.

The Background

Short-form video apps like TikTok have emerged as powerful tools for science communication, allowing experts and enthusiasts to reach vast, often younger, audiences. However, a low entry barrier on these platforms means that anyone can present themselves as an authority. This creates a digital environment where scientific facts coexist with compelling but inaccurate content, full of misinformation or even disinformation. The challenge for an average user is distinguishing between misleading content and real facts.

Although scientific content creators often have a genuine connection to science, they sometimes, whether consciously or not, shift the burden of proof onto the viewer by simply failing to cite sources in their videos. This shift requires the viewer to independently research the issue and determine whether the content is true or not. However, many viewers don’t realize that such a check is even worth doing if they haven’t encountered data verification before. 

The authors of the article attempted to answer several questions: How often do authors of scientific content actually have the relevant education, and do they cite scientific sources? All this leads to an even more fundamental question: Who is responsible for the information? Is it the creator, the viewer, or the platform that sets the posting and moderation rules?

The Methods

To assess the accuracy of science content on TikTok, the researchers employed a quantitative and qualitative methodology. They compiled a total of 210 popular science videos from 21 creators, who had more than 100,000 subscribers and regularly published scientific content.

Each video was then systematically evaluated using a specific assessment framework. The scientific claims in each video were evaluated based on several core criteria, including factual accuracy, meaning the information had to be truthful, objective, and consistent with current scientific evidence. In addition to accuracy, the framework accessed the content for its overall correctness and its scientific soundness, ensuring it was based on the scientific method. The evaluation also checked if claims were evidence-based, looking for citations or mentions of credible sources. Finally, the analysis considered whether the video included multiple perspectives, acknowledged any limitations of the research, and placed the findings in a proper context.

In addition to analyzing the content itself, the researchers also investigated the backgrounds of the video creators, specifically noting whether they possessed formal science education. 

The Results

The analysis revealed significant gaps in sourcing transparency in the scientific communication content studied. Although the majority of content authors (85%) have a scientific background, many fail to provide clear references or adequate citations for the research discussed, such as recent studies, articles, or widely publicized discoveries. This lack of citation applies to both verbal mentions in the content and written descriptions.

One possible explanation for this pattern is the limited experience of many authors in academic publishing. While formal publication is not a prerequisite for producing high-quality scientific communication, it is often part of advanced scientific training and emphasizes the importance of proper citations and referencing. This lack of experience may contribute to weaker sourcing practices, as transparency and citation guidelines are not always consistently applied in their content.

This lack of transparency directly raises several major issues. First, without source citations, viewers cannot verify claims independently. Second, the absence of references makes it impossible to distinguish between peer-reviewed findings, preliminary research, and the creator’s own interpretations. Third, when errors occur, this lack of sources prevents viewers from making their own investigation. 

Furthermore, a number of videos use generalized expressions, such as “scientists think,” which also blur responsibility. This transparency deficit effectively shifts the burden of responsibility to viewers, requiring them to locate original sources themselves (should they choose to). This requires not only time and effort, but sometimes specialized skills, like navigating paper repositories and similar databases, that viewers may lack. As a result, they may accept claims without question or, conversely, reject reliable information due to uncertainty about its origin.

The Impact 

The authors suggest that TikTok seems to have a real risk. The amount of misleading content is especially worrying because it is harder for people to spot inaccurate information. This can weaken public trust in science over time because truth mixed with fiction discredits the truth. 

Content creators also bear responsibility for not helping their audience deepen their knowledge based on a 30 to 60-second video, especially if the source of the knowledge isn’t explicitly provided. Therefore, content creators who are themselves scientists, students, professionals, or enthusiasts must consider the literacy of their audience. They should clearly indicate the source of the fact, attaching links to scientific publications and indicating the author (not only in the video, but also in the comments section). They also should not use vague formulations like “scientists think”: every idea or experiment has an author.

The authors advise content creators to be as transparent as possible, providing multiple sources of information without compromising the video’s entertainment value. However, the platform bears responsibility as well, and TikTok itself could provide clear guidelines for creators, including by collaborating with fact-checking organizations.

Personal reflections: For me as a content-creator it means that I should definitely be responsible for sources and not expect my readers or viewers to do their own research. Science requires proof, and scientific TikTok is no exception: transparency will help us avoid mistakes.

Written by Zoё Chernova

Edited by Anika Zaman and Mykyta ‘Nik’ Kliapets

Featured image credit: Kelly Huang (Unsplash) under the Unsplash License