Introduction

In recent times, science communication (SC) has garnered increased attention within the field of media studies (Bucher, 2020), paralleling the growing demand for meaningful dialogue between scientists and the public (Hilgard and Li, 2017). However, some researchers consider that it is a research field of its own with more than 20 years of tradition with its own publications (e.g., Science Communication, Public Understanding of Science). Broadly defined, SC encompasses communication related to scientific work and its outcomes (Bucchi and Trench, 2014). It serves to relay scientific knowledge, address ethical and societal aspects, and facilitate interactions between scientists and various audiences (Kahan et al., 2017; Trench and Massimiano, 2010).

Effective SC is considered paramount in the contemporary landscape, given science’s growing role in national economies and the increased competition for innovation advantages (Weingart et al., 2021). It enhances knowledge production, workforce development, and innovative capacity (Weingart et al., 2021) and is a crucial element for building trust in science and facilitating informed decision-making about scientific and technological programs (Rose et al., 2020; Weingart et al., 2021). This is especially significant given the intricate interplay of factors such as dependence on funding, public financial support, state accountability, new public management practices, and the imperative of transparency (Marcinkowski and Kohring, 2014).

Weingart (2012) and Bucher (2020) describe the fundamental nature of the medialization of science, referring to the increasing connection between media, science, and the public sphere, including expanded media coverage of scientific topics, specialized formats, and the involvement of new actors. It also involves the adaptation of SC to media standards. Nowadays, a diverse range of contributors play a role in spreading scientific knowledge: individual academics disseminating their research through diverse channels, institutional communicators representing academic institutions, journalists, media experts, public relations (PR) professionals, and even YouTubers (Marcinkowski and Kohring, 2014).

Scientists’ involvement with SC

The fact that modern-day academic scientists are expected to play a central role in disseminating scientific knowledge to diverse audiences is a departure from traditional perceptions of their responsibilities (Rose et al., 2020). In line with the phenomenon of medialization, academia places growing emphasis on public engagement across various media platforms, including traditional and social media, as well as public forums (Bucher, 2020; Marcinkowski and Kohring, 2014; Weingart, 2012).

Simultaneously, scientists face mounting pressure to capture the attention and approval of academia, reviewers, editors, readers, funders, and promotion boards. This pressure stems from the competitive academic environment characterized by a growing number of scholars, journals, published papers, publishers, and authors writing in non-native languages (Hyland and Jiang, 2021). As a result, scholars, much like journalists, now compete for exposure.

Productivity metrics also carry increasing weight in academic progress, which raises the pressure on scientists to capture interest by emphasizing their most remarkable results. This competition for attention has shifted the concept of “public engagement” toward marketing and PR, potentially affecting trust in science (Weingart, 2022).

Hyping science

Given the need to gain attention, engage with policymakers, and secure research funding, scientists might be prone to exaggerate the significance of their work (Brown, 2003; Bubela, 2006), introducing hype to scientific discourse, rendering it a pervasive element of SC (Caulfield and Condit, 2012; Nerlich and McLeod, 2016).

In SC, hype has been defined as the use of promotional, hyperbolic, and dramatic language to glamorize, embellish, or exaggerate aspects of scientific research (Millar et al., 2020), including its potential benefits, which are communicated either explicitly or implicitly to specific audiences. This often entails embellishments of the importance, certainty, potential, safety, or future implementation of research programs or technological innovations, and/or overstated evidence for theories or models across various scientific disciplines (Intemann, 2022). It can also involve simplifying or sensationalizing science to support future visions, often promoting unrealistically optimistic or pessimistic expectations (Roberson, 2020). Other authors view hype as a misleading or unjustified form of scientific fraud (Wilson, 2019; Intemann, 2022). There have been calls for further clarification of the concept and the introduction of additional professional standards and ethical codes to address it effectively (Intemann, 2022).

Science hype is also influenced by multiple actors, including politicians (Caulfield and Condit, 2012; Jiang and Qiu, 2022), business figures, and media (Marcinkowski and Kohring, 2014), the latter being especially criticized for sensationalizing science and prioritizing research of questionable rigor (Sumner et al., 2014). Recent studies also highlighted the active role of the public in propagating hype, especially in the context of social media-dominated information ecosystems (Taschner et al., 2021). Hence, it is vital for the academic community to play an active role in ensuring that the quality of science-related news is maintained (Sumner et al., 2014). Finally, it must be mentioned the fundamental work on the hype cycle introduced by Gartner Inc on 1995, which outlines the typical broader path of emerging technologies through five stages: (1) Innovation trigger; (2) Peak of inflated expectations; (3) Trough of disillusionment; (4) Slope of enlightenment, and (5) Plateau of Productivity (see Dedehayir and Steinert, 2016; Steinert and Leifer, 2010). The model proposes that, initially, hype builds around a new technology, leading to inflated expectations, followed by disappointment when it falls short. Eventually, practical applications emerge, leading to broader adoption and effective use, highlighting the overestimation of short-term impacts and the underestimation of long-term potential.

Consequences of hype

Authors have raised concerns about the adverse consequences of hype. For instance, Millar et al. (2020) contend that prioritizing the marketing of research over its genuine significance can hinder impartial assessments of new knowledge. Some authors view hype as a distraction that diminishes the efficacy of scientific messaging (Roberson, 2019). Tiffany et al. (2022) claim that medialization turns scientists into instruments of media exposure, which impacts scientific integrity and autonomy, potentially harming their careers and stirring envy and fear of being outdone by competing researchers (Ezratty, 2022).

A significant concern is the potential for hype in science to erode public trust in scientific endeavors (Intemann, 2022). Further empirical evidence is needed to fully substantiate this assertion (Master and Resnik, 2013), but Saitz and Schwitzer (2020) assert that sensationalized portrayals of science can foster confusion and unrealistic expectations, which Intemann (2022) claims will lead to negative outcomes such as poor decision-making and misguided investments at a societal level. Hopf et al. (2019) argue that the potential spread of pseudoscientific information is damaging the credibility of science and the people who make it. Auch (2018) and Powers (2012) add that it can potentially lead to the spread of biased beliefs or political agendas.

All of the above concerns have made the concept of trust in science and scientists (TSS) an increasingly important research topic (Dixson et al., 2022). Individuals, politicians, and policymakers rely on scientific expertise for guidance with informed decisions (de Melo-Martín and Intemann, 2018), given their limited expertise at directly evaluating scientific content (Goldenberg, 2023). However, they are not working totally in the dark (Dixson et al., 2022), for they do apply epistemic and moral assessments of the accuracy of scientific claims and the expertise and societal impact of those making them (de Melo-Martín and Intemann, 2018), while recognizing that scientists’ trustworthiness encompasses considerations of their credibility, honesty, and moral integrity (Dixson et al., 2022). Hence, the calls to effectively address or mitigate hype due to its potential negative effect on TSS (e.g., Caulfield, 2018).

However, there are also positive views of hype. For instance, Roberson (2019, 2020) considers it to be an effective communication tool that drives engagement in science and technology, promoting progress and advancing discussions on feasibility and potential. This perspective suggests that the advanced rhetoric used in scientific discourse propels competition, global leadership, and societal benefits (Roberson, 2019). Caulfield and Condit (2012) support this view, arguing that empirical data do not consistently show that hype is inherently negative, as audiences are not always influenced by it. Again, more empirical research is needed to support these claims.

Objectives and research questions (RQs)

This study explores scientists’ perceptions and use of hype in media, offering insights into the way they present their breakthroughs and pursue public engagement on science matters (Caulfield, 2018; Tiffany et al., 2022). It responds to the need to assess how scientists communicate their research in the media and its impact on the public and policy spheres (Caulfield et al., 2021); while examining their attitudes to SC, particularly regarding hype (Rose et al., 2020; Powers, 2012) and its role in science medialization (e.g., Weingart, 2012). The study continues a line of research developed following Goodell’s (1977) notion of visible scientists, which has inspired various comparative empirical studies of scientists as science communicators (e.g., Biermann and Taddicken, 2025; Joubert et al., 2023). It addresses the following research questions (RQs):

RQ1: What are scientists’ attitudes and perspectives regarding the use of hype in SC?

RQ2: To what extent do scientists employ hype in their research communication?

RQ3: How do scientists’ beliefs, emotions, and behaviors influence their use of hype in SC?

This study seeks to explore scientists’ attitudes toward hype by addressing specific research questions through a qualitative psychological approach, drawing on Eagly and Chaiken’s (1993, 2007) multicomponent model of attitudes. This model views attitudes as psychological tendencies that are expressed through varying degrees of favor or disfavor and include affective, behavioral, and cognitive elements. The goal of this exploration is to gain insights into the overall nature of these attitudes, setting the stage for future studies that may quantitatively assess their dimensions and prevalence across scientific fields and develop tools for evaluating attitudes toward hype.

Existing empirical studies have observed specific manifestations of hype, but not in the comprehensive sense of this research (Intemann, 2022). Chubb and Watermeyer (2017) observed academics from Australian and British universities, finding that competition for funding drives them to employ sensationalist strategies. According to their research, academics describe themselves as “impact merchants” who craft exaggerated claims to meet performance targets set by their senior managers and access research funding, openly acknowledging their own complicity in a system they criticize. In a study by Millar et al. (2020) of papers associated with a Japanese medical school, first authors employed hyped language to instill confidence in research methods, emphasize precision, highlight study novelty, and persuade readers of clinical significance. The study concluded that effective medical writing is an art, requiring a balance between objective truth and subjective interpretation.

On the other hand, media hype has been studied in relation to the intensity of news coverage (van Atteveldt et al., 2018), but not so much as a distinct concept in communication and media studies (Powers, 2012). Vasterman (2018) views media hype as event-driven, while Gray (2010a, 2010b) takes a broader perspective, defining it as a market-oriented genre that promotes its objects and drawing on Intemann’s (2022) framework in the context of SC. Our own description of hype is that of an exaggeration, where positive aspects of scientific work and its effects are magnified in communication to specific audiences within particular contexts, whether explicitly or implicitly. This study also considers hype to mean simplifying and sensationalizing science to shape future visions and gain the support of a diversity of audiences (Roberson, 2020) while also acknowledging that it might involve deliberately deceptive, misleading, or unjustified communication at different levels (Wilson, 2019; Intemann, 2022). Departing from the traditional view of hype as solely an act or product of communication (Powers, 2012), our research breaks new ground by inviting scientists to discuss their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors with regard to these practices (Nisbet and Markowitz, 2015), thus addressing a significant research gap.

This study acknowledges the extensive body of work in Sociology of Science and Science and Technology Studies (e.g., Hilgartner, 2000; Luhmann, 1992; Shapin, Schaffer, 1985), which highlights that presenting research findings to diverse audiences is a complex social process involving the creation of a publishable and understandable version of the results. This process requires balancing scientific precision with the need to communicate effectively, navigating institutional norms, audience expectations, and the social dimensions of science. As a result, research findings are not neutrally transmitted but are socially constructed and shaped by broader societal forces. Presenting research is thus a negotiated process, where knowledge is actively reformulated to fit the audience’s needs while considering the institutional, social, and political contexts in which science operates. While this study acknowledges the importance of sociological and cultural factors in shaping scientists’ attitudes toward hype and communication, its primary goal is to identify specific attitudes—emotions, cognitions, and behaviors—related to hype, as a crucial first step toward advancing the debate on scientists’ psychological relationship with this communicative phenomenon.

Methods

Free from preconceived theories (Creswell and Poth, 2018; Tomaszewski et al., 2020), this study employs a qualitative psychological phenomenological approach to investigate scientists’ experiential narratives (Converse, 2012) around their use of hype when communicating their work to different audiences. Qualitative research is useful for deepening the understanding of the psychology of hype by offering detailed insights into scientists’ behaviors and personal experiences that quantitative methods might miss (Bhati et al., 2013). This perspective is especially valuable for generating and refining theories based on real-world phenomena (Kidd, 2002), making it instrumental for advancing knowledge about hype practices. This research adopts Eagly and Chaiken’s (1993, 2007) multicomponent model of attitudes, which defines attitudes as psychological tendencies with affective (emotions), behavioral (actions), and cognitive (thoughts) components.

Participants and procedure

Between October and November 2022, we conducted online focus groups (FGs) using Zoom, a platform suitable for remote discussions (Kite and Phongsavan, 2017) and known to yield data comparable to in-person FGs (Keemink et al., 2022).

The research literature claims that three focus groups (FGs) are sufficient to explore a phenomenon, with the initial session identifying key topics and the next two providing deeper insights. Additional groups are unlikely to significantly enhance the findings (Hennink et al., 2019). However, despite reaching data saturation after the third FG, we conducted two more to ensure a comprehensive dataset.

The study involved 24 Quantum Physicists (QP), of whom 92% as men (n = 22) and 8% identified as women (n = 2) (RangeAge = 24–65 years). This field is experiencing notable hype, particularly regarding overstated claims about the potential of quantum computing (Ezratty, 2022).

The participants were active QPs of diverse nationalities working at a renowned international research center located in the United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi). They were at different stages of their respective careers, from post-doctoral students to senior researchers, thus ensuring diverse perspectives. The study made an effort to achieve a gender balanced sample, but even though every single female QP at the center participated in the study, it was still hindered by the predominantly male presence, especially at senior levels. This reflects the acknowledged gender gap in science and technology, attributed to factors such as stereotypes, family dynamics, education, peers, and culture (Verdugo-Castro et al., 2022).

Recruitment employed a snowballing technique, beginning with the researchers’ social networks and email outreach. Participation was voluntary without compensation, and informed consent was provided.

The FG discussions (4–6 participants each) followed a semi-structured questionnaire. Questions included whether they had engaged in professional hype, reasons and causes for doing so, its perpetrators, its effects, potential victims, and the most hyped topics in their field. The techniques outlined by Bergen and Labonté (2020) were utilized to mitigate social desirability biases, which include indirect questioning, providing reassurance, probing for additional information, and requesting examples or stories.

The participants were presented with a broad and inclusive definition of hype when they explicitly requested it to elicit the broadest possible range of associated attitudes and experiences. This happened in less than half of the FGs. In such cases, they were informed that hype could encompass exaggeration (Intemann, 2022), simplification, sensationalism (Roberson, 2020), or misleading information (Wilson, 2019; Intemann, 2022) across various research stages, communication products and audiences. In all other instances, we allowed the participating scientists to naturally rely on their own interpretations of what they perceived hype to entail.

A researcher whom the participants had never met before led the FGs, while another unfamiliar researcher served as an assistant and observer.

The FGs were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for subsequent analysis.

Data processing

With the assistance of Atlas.ti software, an inductive thematic analysis (TA), a widely-used qualitative method in the Social Sciences (Guest et al., 2012), was used. The software facilitated data organization, but the coding and interpretation were carried out manually by the researchers. TA involves systematically reviewing textual data to identify key themes and interpret their underlying structure and content (Braun and Clarke, 2006), making it suitable for descriptive phenomenology (Sundler et al., 2019). Specifically, the analysis identified significant themes and facets in the participants’ responses, explored their narratives, uncovered underlying meanings and feelings, and compared them across different understandings. Individual experiences were used to illustrate the themes (Sundler et al., 2019). In terms of procedure, one researcher performed the initial coding and identified preliminary themes. A second researcher independently reviewed the coding, ensured consistency, and contributed to refining and deepening the thematic structure through an additional layer of analysis.

Responses were not distributed across specific FGs, as the analysis aimed to identify overarching themes across all participants rather than making group-based comparisons. Grouping responses would have conflicted with the holistic nature of thematic analysis, which seeks to explore shared patterns and variations across the entire dataset. By avoiding group labels or numbers, a broader range of experiences was captured, emphasizing universal themes free from the constraints of predefined categories. Additionally, assigning numbers to participants would have focused attention on individual identities, potentially undermining the collective insights and patterns central to the analysis.

Results

The TA of the participants’ responses delineated five key themes that reflect their attitudes and experiences with regard to “Who hypes science?”; “What drives the occurrence of hype?”; “Personal experience with hype”; “Perceived consequences of hype” and “Potential victims of hype in scientific communication.” Table 1, at the end of this section, outlines the key aspects of each topic.

Table 1 Attitudes and experiences of participants regarding hype.
Full size table

Who hypes science?

The participants identified various agents that engage in hype within SC, with scientists themselves being highlighted as the primary contributors. We present detailed descriptions of these below, including quotes that exemplify their perceptions.

Scientists recognize that they employ hype

The consensus among most participants is that scientists do indeed embrace hype. As one explains, “it is a good way to get funding. To ride the wave of [QP] hype and try to get funding from that, which typically most researchers then use to do nice, scientific investigations.” These sentiments resonated with the majority of participants, who also expressed concerns about scientists using hype as a strategy to access funding.

Major corporations are also responsible for hype

Conversely, a similar proportion of participants argue that hype in SC can be attributed to major corporations. For example, one participant linked it to renowned companies like Microsoft, IBM, and Google in the specific field of QP, noting that, “these companies used to really drive the whole field, which was a very good thing. I mean, the reason why we have so much money [is] because these companies very professionally like [QP] research and also achieved milestones together with a huge, huge PR effect.” Another participant referred to the substantial investments made by these major companies in QP, and another argued that there was consensus in the research community that Google’s contribution to the hype in QP was notably significant, particularly with regard to its supremacy experiment (see Gibney, 2019).

Marketing and PR departments of research institutions often use misleading or inappropriate hype

Some participants attributed the hype in SC to marketing departments within research institutions. As one noted, “the usual hype happens when you go to the marketing department and say what you did and they turn it into … some cool story, some big story.” Overall, the participants had a negative attitude toward the hype tactics employed by their marketing departments, which they say leads to feelings of frustration, anxiety, and anger.

Startups are often the culprits. A minority of participants identified startups as especially responsible for hype, driven by their imperative need to obtain financial support. As one succinctly remarked, “the hype is now being generated by smaller companies.”

Journalists and media must be blamed

A subset of participants shared the perspective that hype often originates from journalists and the media. One observed that journalists tend to align their stories with their audience’s interests, exploiting their limited understanding of the subject matter, occasionally resulting in stories that are more distorted or exaggerated than necessary. Another emphasized how, “the hype produced by us and journalists is different… hype produced by the media can be somewhat distorted from our hype. Just because journalists don’t have a scientific background.”

Privileged and powerful individuals, mostly men, use hype

Another group of participants believes that hype is often generated by individuals and countries in positions of power and substantial wealth. A female participant expressed the view that someone seeking funding and the opportunity to conduct research typically needs charisma, an extensive network, and the time and resources necessary for in-depth concentration. She noted that “hype is driven by the ego of white, privileged males in science.” A male participant suggested that hype tends to occur in places where there is less need to address other pressing issues, which can be attributed to “white privilege … in a dozen other rich countries.”

Scientists from certain countries tend to hype more

A few participants believe that different regions’ funding systems impact the use of hype in SC. One notes that “the American system is more practical, but the European system is more fundamental.” Consequently, as stated by another participant, European researchers focus on basic science and have less need for hype, while “in the US they are more focused on applications, on things that can be marketed there.” Another participant highlights the financial aspect, stating that the greater hype in the US is “part of the business model [that] gives millions to somebody and hypes it, in the hope of greater adoption.” Another participant attributes much of the hype to the United States and its startups, which “produce so many news items about the things that [they] are doing. So, most of the hype… comes from those startups.”

Pseudoscientific hype

One participant contends that hype is frequently the work of pseudoscientists, whom he categorizes as people “who don’t really know what they’re talking about.” However, he also concedes that some do possess knowledge about the topics they address, whom he classifies as “dishonest.”

What drives the occurrence of hype?

The participants emphasize two main motivations for hype in SC: securing research funding and the commercialization of academia. They note that major entities, such as corporations and countries, use hype to demonstrate dominance, with scientists playing a key role in these power strategies. A detailed description of these reasons follows.

Obtaining funding for scientific research

Most participants acknowledge the pivotal role of hype in obtaining funding for scientific research and product development, as discussed earlier.

Academic funding system

However, most of the participants view hype as a problematic practice rooted in broader organizational issues within the academic funding system. This is exemplified by one observation that this system “kind of forces you to twist your story a little bit to attract funding.” Today, scientists are esteemed for their ability to secure funding, which often pressures them to adapt and embellish their narratives, something they view as an institutional challenge rather than an intrinsic desire.

A profit-driven perspective on science with a commercial focus

Most of the participants consider research today an activity that must be sold to different entities, which requires a certain degree of hype. One said, “you need to sell. It’s a skill and it’s necessary to get money.” Another agreed that he primarily gets his work published in journals by drafting “a good abstract and introduction, and conclusions where you try to sell yourself.”

Thriving in the fiercely competitive world of modern science

For some participants, the existence of hype in the academic world is closely tied to their survival within it. As one succinctly puts it: “A university professor has no choice if he wants a grant, he has to jump on the hype train.” This sentiment is further reinforced by another participant who describes colleagues and friends who feel compelled to produce attention-grabbing papers in prestigious journals like Nature to remain competitive in their fields. This often necessitates a degree of “hypeness” and exaggeration. Another participant notes that given the overwhelming volume of research articles being published these days, young scientists in particular must actively promote themselves to stand out because, ultimately, academia values people with more publications.

The more senior participants in the sample strongly criticize hype in scientific communication, describing it as a modern-day practice, while younger participants acknowledge the system’s existence and tend to take a more pragmatic approach, but do disapprove of excessive or distorted hype. Of course, the former group are generally well-established in academia, while many in the latter group are still at the early stages of their careers.

Rivalry between corporations and nations

A subset of participants suggests that competition, both among companies and countries, also plays a pivotal role in generating hype. One emphasized that this “is being driven by companies that are competing, like Google and IBM.” Another participant mentions the relative lack of regulation they face, for “they’re private companies with closed capital. So they are not under the jurisdiction of the [United States] Securities and Exchange Commission. So they make the wildest PowerPoints they can. “ Another participant adds that sensationalist articles and hype produced by local industries can instill a sense of national or communal pride, making people feel as though they possess a cutting-edge technology or skill set that sets them apart from others.

Shaping expectations regarding scientific outcomes

The deceptive nature of hype becomes apparent in the following comments from two participants. One suggests that some scientists may resort to hype as a means to buy time, implying a deliberate manipulation of information and expectations, wherein “we are just kind of exaggerating a bit. Maybe we believe it will be ready in ten years, but then we say, okay, maybe next year, you know, and then we try to get from there next year, we’ll try to convince you that one more year will be enough.” This aligns with the other participant’s acknowledgment that hype can be attributed to pseudoscience, distinguishing between people who unknowingly make unsubstantiated claims and those who intentionally engage in deceptive practices for dishonest profit.

Personal experience with hype

The participants reflected on their own use of hype and its underlying reasons. In general, their responses indicated not only a manifested recognition of the use of hype but also its strategic deployment, influenced by their audience.

I have enhanced abstracts and content with hype

As noted earlier, most participants admitted to intentionally introducing an element of hype to abstracts and texts submitted to journals for publication. For example, one said, “I learned that you need some hype to get things pushed… In your introduction to scientific publications, you need to mention that there’s a lot of interest in that, that the field is pushing towards that or else your paper will never get accepted.”

I have used hype in applications for research funding and grants

One participant acknowledged incorporating “some kind of hype” into their research and grant applications, describing it as “upselling what you do so that people invest and give you money to continue doing it.” Another added that “many proposals require you to predict in some sense what your research will bring to society,” and stressed the need to say “what everybody else says,” as failure to do so would result in a lack of funding.

I have used hype in corporate events and conferences

A few participants confessed to engaging in hype at conferences. One noted that “I think we participated in the hype just by the fact that a quantum stand existed at a corporate event.” Another added that “I think we should participate in more events like this because it’s important. It’s an opportunity for us to talk to people and to understand people, the general public’s perception of QP in our case, and it’s an opportunity to talk to them and to get some of them to understand what’s actually going on and what is overhyped about it.”

I have used hype when engaging with individuals outside of their field

A few participants openly admit to intentionally injecting a level of over-optimism or hype into their discussions with individuals from outside of the field. One says that “when we talk among ourselves, we are much more pessimistic about the results and the future of the field than we are when we talk to people outside… when we’re talking among ourselves, we’re like they’re trying to sell this idea; this is obviously not going to work like that or it’s not going to be ready in five years, but in 20 years. But then, when we go outside our environment and people ask us what we think about quantum computation, we start being more optimistic.” Another female participant added that “we usually say it’s guaranteed… It’s not ‘there is a possibility that we will get those algorithms to work’, it’s ‘no, it will happen.”

I have navigated a wave of hype

A few participants acknowledged how they had benefited from hype in the past. One said that “I was lucky to be caught in a couple of waves of hype before. I didn’t choose them, it was just where my career path led me … I did my Master’s in solar cells and back then in 2014, there was a lot of funding for that. There’s a lot of money being pumped into that.” Another participant, however, shared a contrasting perspective, claiming to have been fortunate in their research despite the prevailing hype.

I have used hype when disseminating my research on social media

One participant explains how “I now have a Twitter for Quantum, because it makes my research more visible. So there, you also tweet, like, ‘look at this new result, this is awesome.” Another, who actively hypes social media content for his marketing department, which works with YouTuber Nash Daily, says “if you see any of his videos, it’s all full of exaggeration…. That’s how YouTubers communicate.”

Consequences of hype

Reflecting on the consequences of hype in SC, most of the participants highlighted adverse effects, with only a minority discussing the few potentially positive outcomes.

The risk of funding being withdrawn due to unmet promises

Several participants say that one of the most significant consequences of hype is the potential withdrawal of funding if promised results cannot be delivered. One described the predicament that scientists face when they fail to meet the high expectations set by their own hype thus: “What happens in two or three years when we’re supposed to deliver some products or yield some results, the research, and we don’t have anything and we might be quite sure that we won’t have anything of the sort that we have promised… we will lose the funding, there’s this sort of problem like we’ve promised too much.” This sentiment was echoed by another participant who said “if there’s too much overpromise and too few deliverables, things that are really demonstrated and work, then at some point policymakers will start saying, ‘okay, we have to cut the money.’”

Research field stagnation

One participant expressed concerns about the potential adverse consequences for the field if promises and hype are not realized, possibly leading to a decrease in funding, which would hinder the influx of new talent and resources and ultimately cause stagnation.

Damage to the scientific institution’s reputation

Several participants express concerns about the potential harm to the institutions’ reputation caused by excessive hype. One comments that “if we exaggerate in the way that we communicate, then other institutions are not going to perceive us as a serious scientific institution, and that is going to prevent us from … attracting talent.” Another participant says, “my main concern is that if we have this image of an organization that produces untrue statements, we scare off good scientists.”

Research concentrated on areas with significant hype

Several participants express concerns about the potential negative consequence of hype causing research to only focus on a few specific areas. One points out that “hype might also funnel funds into a very small part of the community that is doing the hyped-up thing and that might leave the wider community of scientists that might be focusing on other things, that don’t have as many articles as the other one, to be left without funding.” Another participant adds that hype tends to elevate one narrative or idea to the forefront of general attention, subsequently steering the scientific community in that direction.

Eroded trust in science

Some participants express concerns about the potential negative impact of bad hype on the public’s trust in science. One emphasizes the importance of effective communication “to build the trust between the scientific society and the wider audience so that people understand where this money is going … if it’s going to the wrong place, or is badly reported, then people will lose faith and say why not spend this money on better roads or whatnot.”

Misleading stakeholders into believing that certain achievements are feasible

One participant mentions how hype “has a negative impact when the exaggeration misleads different stakeholders into believing that things are possible, which are not possible, at least not in the short term. And that can lead later on to disappointment.” This participant also raises the issue of how some people cannot discern between genuine advancements and exaggerated claims.

Rise of science deniers and skeptics who view science as unattainable

One participant highlights how hype leads to people failing to comprehend a scientific topic and ultimately denying its authenticity. He says “I feel that some articles convey the message in such a way that make people are put off science and feel like it’s something ‘I can never understand. It’s something I cannot grasp in any way.’ And I think this is dangerous.” He claims this can lead to science deniers and people who perceive science as an unattainable realm, and hence underscores the importance of a well-informed society, emphasizing that people need fair access to information about science.

Emergence of pseudoscience

One participant is concerned that when people attempt to promote scientific concepts by including details that “might not be very close to reality,” such hype can lead to the propagation of pseudoscientific ideas “like ‘quantum healing,’ … ‘quantum mattresses,’ and … other quantum-related concepts.” The participant emphasizes the need to be cautious and responsible when communicating science, as it may inadvertently create fertile ground for the spread of pseudoscientific beliefs.

A positive outcome: sparking public interest and attracting investments

A minority of participants recognized positive outcomes of hype in SC, highlighting how it can stimulate public interest and attract investments. One expressed this view by stating: “it’s nice to have this sort of hype in a way because it generates, promotes attention to the field.” Another participant concurred, emphasizing that “with hype you are able to attract maybe not just scientists, but the wider community also becomes interested in a topic and gets to know more. And also, that has some potential good consequences in that it attracts investors who can fund research if they consider it interesting and useful.”

Are there victims of hype?

Various participants cited various examples of how hype can negatively impact different agents or entities.

Scientists’ careers

Some participants expressed the view that scientists can get entangled in the web of hype and end up being victims of it. One spoke of how “individual careers kind of break because people simply missed out on the hype that’s in the field.” Another shared similar concerns, emphasizing that prolonged failure to meet heightened expectations could result in dwindling investments. However, one participant raised the counter-argument that “if you are part of the creation [of the hype] process, then I don’t know if you can call yourself a victim.”

People with limited scientific understanding

Several participants expressed the belief that people with no in-depth understanding of science are victims of hype. A female participant recounted encounters with such people who, as a result, harbor fear and apprehension toward sciences. She highlighted the common sentiment that QP is potentially perilous, drawing parallels to past concerns about scientific advancements due to media hype. For instance, during the construction of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, negative press coverage generated unfounded fears of a black hole appearing when the device was activated. One participant reflects the general consensus when emphasizing that “the main issue is probably misinformation or fear,” claiming it is often fueled by a lack of understanding.

Investors

One participant commented that when scientists employ hype as a strategy, this can lead to adverse consequences with regard to investors, because “if you’re hyping to gain money from an investor, you might be causing damage to a specific person, group or company.”

Degree-seeking students

One participant expressed concerns about the potential impact of hype on students pursuing degrees, particularly those in highly specialized topics like QP. He notes that although hype “creates a lot of investment, a lot of money, a lot of people interested in the topic,” such extreme specialization potentially limits students’ ability to adapt or change their career trajectories if the field experiences a downturn.

Decision-makers shaping the research and funding landscape

Finally, one participant raises concerns about people in influential positions, such as “the principal investigators who directly decide which projects we work on, or the funding level with research councils, where they put out calls for proposals,” claiming that these are among those most susceptible to the influence of hype.

Conclusions

This research investigates the use of hype in public communication by scientists (Hilgard and Li, 2017) and acknowledges the various strategies employed in doing so (Bucchi and Trench, 2014). Unlike traditional media communication studies that often treat hype as a marketing tool (e.g., Gray, 2008, 2010a, 2010b) or focus on its dissemination (e.g., van Atteveldt et al., 2018; Vasterman, 2018), this study examines hype as a reflection of scientists’ thoughts, emotions, and behaviors in the context of SC (Powers, 2012; Master and Resnik, 2013; Intemann, 2022). In doing so, it adds to the empirical literature on the topic, addressing calls for further research in this area (Ezratty, 2022).

This research is valuable because scientists play a significant role in fostering public trust in science, which depends on their credibility and moral integrity (Goldenberg, 2023; de Melo-Martín and Intemann, 2018; Dixson et al., 2022). Given that individuals, politicians, and policymakers often rely on their expertise for guidance on scientific matters (de Melo-Martín and Intemann, 2018), the way scientists communicate can influence public and policy discussions (Caulfield et al., 2021). Previous research has suggested that hype can contribute to mistrust of scientists and the scientific system (Intemann, 2022). The results of this study contribute to the empirical understanding of hype in science communication (Master and Resnik, 2013; Rose et al., 2020; Powers, 2012) and expand the limited literature on the topic from the perspective of scientists (e.g., Besley et al., 2018; Nisbet and Markowitz, 2015), highlighting the potential influence of scientists on society and their involvement in both initiating and responding to hype in science communication (Goldenberg, 2023).

Specifically, this research highlights scientists’ attitudes and behaviors toward hype as an important but underexplored factor in science communication (SC), offering insights into how these factors shape hype practices. The findings underscore the role that individual convictions and emotional responses play in influencing science hype, suggesting the need for further investigation into the personal and ethical dimensions of hype within academic and scientific communities. This study provides a nuanced exploration of how quantum scientists engage with science hype, uncovering their motivations, emotional responses, and practices in a competitive academic environment. By incorporating a micro-level perspective on individual scientists, it complements existing research that often focuses on institutional and societal factors influencing hype. Consequently, the research contributes to a more detailed understanding of science hype, especially in an era where scientific credibility is increasingly questioned.

This exploratory and phenomenological research contributes to the understanding of the role of hype in science medialization and its potential effects on science communication (SC) within academia (Rose et al., 2020; Marcinkowski and Kohring, 2014; Tiffany et al., 2022). In today’s competitive academic environment, scientists often hype their findings to capture the attention of various stakeholders (Fire and Guestrin, 2019; Bucher, 2020), employing techniques such as simplification, exaggeration, and sensationalization (Intemann, 2022; Roberson, 2020; Brown, 2003; Brown and Michael, 2003; Nerlich and McLeod, 2016), as reflected in the participants’ accounts.

The findings suggest that quantum scientists, in both their scientific work and public outreach, are aware that their communication may involve elements of hype. However, hype is a complex phenomenon influenced by various factors (e.g., Caulfield, 2018) that originate from other diverse sources, including scientific entities, media outlets (Caulfield and Condit, 2012), politicians (Jiang and Qiu, 2022), and business leaders (Marcinkowski and Kohring, 2014). These perceptions align with existing notions in the scientific community (Brown, 2003; Brown and Michael, 2003; Nerlich and McLeod, 2016).

Additionally, this study suggests that scientists in the sample recognize their role in generating science hype, aligning with prior research (e.g., Sumner et al., 2014). The results suggest that scientists adapt their science communication (SC) strategies to suit specific audiences, objectives, and visibility needs within academic and organizational contexts. To a lesser extent, they also recognize that other actors, including major corporations, research institution marketing departments, startups, journalists, privileged individuals, and pseudoscientists, may contribute to the creation and spread of science hype. These findings highlight the multiple factors that shape SC hype (Caulfield, 2018; Marcinkowski and Kohring, 2014) and its structural underpinnings.

Likewise, the results suggest that some scientists may consciously utilize hype as a dynamic communication strategy driven by competitiveness, the various purposes including securing funding, enhancing the exposure of promotional materials and research articles, emphasizing impact in response to grant proposals, addressing misconceptions at events, shaping their image among non-experts, and using social media for broader dissemination. These practices are coherent with the attention economy, whereby scientists leverage hype to capture rapid attention, reflecting the growing emphasis on “public attention” within the academic system. This highlights the potential role of scientists as mediators of media exposure, reflecting the ongoing process of science medialization (Hyland, 2023; Brown, 2003; Bubela, 2006; Caulfield and Condit, 2012; Marcinkowski and Kohring, 2014; Tiffany et al., 2022; Bucher, 2020).

The participants note that major corporations to startups may use hype for financial gain and to validate investments, that marketing departments of research institutions may enhance the significance of their results to attract investors, that journalists may use hype to seek commercial success, and that pseudoscientists may exploit the credibility of science for marketing purposes. All of this aligns with a neoliberal, competitive, commercial, de-professionalized, and service-oriented academic system (Chubb and Watermeyer, 2017; Rose et al., 2020; Bucher, 2020). Some of our respondents also perceive that regions with robust public academic systems, like Europe, may engage in less hype compared to their counterparts in the US, where there is a greater emphasis on competition, private funding, industry-sponsored research, and market-oriented approaches. Future research should explore these observations further.

This research suggests that a range of emotions, such as frustration and skepticism, are associated with the broader concept of hype in science communication. Some participants acknowledge its potential impact on trust in science and, as a result, reflect on their own moral integrity, indicating a possible dissonance between their emotions, beliefs, and actions (de Melo-Martín and Intemann, 2018; Dixson et al., 2022; Goldenberg, 2023).

However, when asked about hype, some participants express frustration, anxiety, and anger toward other actors within the scientific system, perceiving themselves as victims. They are particularly critical of the marketing departments of research institutions, which they often view as disconnected from scientific objectives. They regard their frustration as a consequence of broader organizational challenges within the academic funding system and express discomfort with the pressure to embellish narratives to secure support in the profit-driven landscape of contemporary science. More senior scientists of the sample are especially disillusioned by the shift toward competitive, neoliberal practices, while younger scholars are more pragmatic about the need for hype and tend not to view it in such a negative light.

This research indicates that some scientists in the sample view hype positively, particularly when it is generated by colleagues or organizations that financially support the field. However, they tend to express more negativity toward hype that does not benefit them directly. At the same time, hype may exert a pervasive influence in the competitive academic landscape, potentially encouraging scientists to engage in practices that could compromise their work or autonomy. Some participants indicate that they feel directed toward objectives that may not align with genuine scientific knowledge, with hype potentially functioning as a tool to assert influence, making scientists vulnerable to broader power dynamics.

The findings suggest a dissonance between scientists’ involvement in hype, which they often view as an inevitable aspect of the academic/scientific system, and their criticism of hype generated by others. This paradoxical situation may warrant further exploration in future research, particularly considering personal factors such as gender and career stage.

The findings suggest that some scientists in the sample may adjust their use of hype depending on the audience. They appear to be more cautious when addressing peers but might be more inclined to use hype when engaging with the general public. This approach may help maintain their professional image within the academic community while potentially attracting wider support. Some participants acknowledge that hype can be a double-edged sword, recognizing its potential to capture attention but also considering the ethical implications and the need to clarify any exaggerations or misconceptions later.

In summary, this research suggests that, according to the scientists in the sample, hype in SC may have primarily negative potential consequences for science, the scientific community, and society. These concerns include the risk of losing funding if promised results are not realized, damage to the reputations of scientific institutions, shifts in research priorities, erosion of public trust, and the potential for pseudoscience to proliferate, which may strengthen the arguments of science deniers. However, despite these concerns, a minority of participants recognize some positive aspects of hype, seeing it as a way to generate public interest and attract investments.

All of the above serves as a follow-up to the work initiated by Intemann (2022), examining hype as a complex interplay of thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and moral perspectives that may be purposefully adopted by various stakeholders in the academic and scientific realms to achieve professional benefits such as funding, recognition, exposure, and career advancement. These findings align with a neoliberal understanding of science, including its medialization (Hyland, 2023; Brown, 2003; Bubela, 2006; Caulfield and Condit, 2012; Marcinkowski and Kohring, 2014; Tiffany et al., 2022; Bucher, 2020). Additionally, hype may also reflect power dynamics within the scientific system, which could intersect with gender perspectives.

Future research could explore the potential implications of hype across various scientific domains, with an emphasis on ethical considerations. It may also investigate the influence of different sources of hype on TSS, as well as the effects of forms like exaggeration (Intemann, 2022), simplification, sensationalism (Roberson, 2020), distortion, and misinformation (Wilson, 2019; Intemann, 2022). Such studies may assess factors like credibility, emotional impact, and perceived ethical behavior among both science communicators and their audiences. Additionally, further research could consider scientists’ attitudes toward hype in health communication and medicine, areas where hype is prevalent, often driven by market interests, and where it can influence behaviors and decisions with significant consequences for well-being.

Finally, one potential avenue for immediate development is to conduct quantitative studies that explore scientists’ perspectives on hype and its associated practices across different cultural contexts and disciplines, taking into account factors such as experience, age, and/or gender. For example, participants in this study suggested that younger scientists, women, and those working in specific countries may hold different attitudes toward hype compared to older scientists or men.

Limitations

This study presents certain limitations to be taken into account. First, its sample was drawn from a single research center—though international and diverse in terms of nationality, discipline, and career stage—which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Institutional norms and communication cultures unique to the center may have influenced participant responses.

Second, the use of focus groups may have introduced social desirability bias, as participants may have moderated their views to align with professional norms. Future studies could employ alternative methods—such as anonymous surveys or individual interviews—to encourage more candid responses. A mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative interviews with quantitative scales, would allow for a more robust exploration of hype-related attitudes and behaviors.

This study also focuses on quantum physics as a case study due to its public prominence, but hype may operate differently in other fields. Comparative research across disciplines (e.g., biomedicine, climate science, AI) could identify both field-specific and cross-cutting dynamics in SC.

To build on these findings, confirmatory studies using large-scale surveys should be conducted to validate patterns identified here and to develop psychometric instruments capturing the affective (e.g., emotions), cognitive (e.g., beliefs), and behavioral (e.g., use and context) dimensions of hype. Further research could also examine meso- and macro-level influences, including institutional incentives, media logic, and national science policies.

Finally, while this research initiates an empirical conversation on the personal and ethical dimensions of hype in SC, it is exploratory and not exhaustive. It should be replicated and extended using diverse samples, disciplines, and methods to develop a more comprehensive and comparative understanding of science hype in contemporary research cultures.