Opposing consensus science through scholarly practices: The role of claims maintenance

This study examines how three US‐based communities who oppose consensus science produce and disseminate scholarly‐like artifacts: pro‐life activists, Young Earth Creationists, and Anthropogenic Climate Crisis skeptics. Prior research shows that industry‐ or church‐backed advocacy campaigns often generate claims supported by these communities, such as abortion being high‐risk while reversal is not; the Earth forming in 6 days about 6000 years ago; or climate change not being anthropogenic. In this paper, we bring attention to how these communities—via the production of scholarly artifacts like secondary analysis of open data, journal articles, and replication reports—systematically assemble, distribute, and legitimize new evidence (or what is perceived as such) in support of advocacy campaigns' claims. We refer to this practice as “claims maintenance” and highlight the role that digital platforms play in it. We also discuss how they interact with scholarly artifacts that are produced within consensus science knowledge infrastructures, and how, despite differing ontologies, these communities share a commitment to participatory, transparent scholarly practices, using data sharing and reuse to signal epistemic credibility.