Communicating Science Updates

This is part of a series of posts describing science in terms of a new social contract with clauses and expectations of both scientists and society. The links for all of the posts so far can be found on the ‘highlights’ page. So if you are interested, start there to get the complete contract.

In my original post about a new social contract for science and society, I didn’t go into too many practical details as to how to make these terms work for all of us. So let’s dig a little deeper into scientific status updates…

“We will do a better job communicating status updates to you… “

A couple of my posts last week should have given you some insights as to how scientists communicate with one another and new variations on that theme. In theory, scientists should be writing their results clearly enough for everyone to understand, but in practice this doesn’t happen. Most scientific literature is readily understandable to only a small audience of scientists within the same field; therefore, these publications provide a poor venue for communicating important scientific findings to the general public (not to mention the fact that it is prohibitively expensive to access unless you are an institutional subscriber).  This impasse has existed for many years with scientists on one side talking with one another thinking they are doing an adequate job of putting their research in the public domain and with the general public on the other side wondering what scientists could possibly be doing in their ivory towers only venturing out on seldom occasions to spout off numbers foretelling our impending doom from climate change, food shortages, rainforest destruction, and flu pandemics*. This situation has festered to the point where neither scientists nor the general public really want to talk with one another and lack the skills to meaningfully communicate. The real shame is the fact that science now more than ever permeates all aspects of our lives. More people should be aware of current research and what it means for their future. I’m sure that is common ground we can all agree on.

The publication of peer-reviewed research in scholarly journals will continue to be the most respected way scientists communicate with one another, but where does that leave everyone else?  Out in the cold. How do scientists plan on communicating with the general public?

Fortunately, the information age and the advent of social media are peaking just as the science and society communication rift is in need of a bridge. If there is a technology available to immediately disseminate such mundane details as what Justin Bieber ate for breakfast this morning to 40 million plus people around the globe, I think we could find a way to harness that power for the sake of knowledge. Yes, scientists should be on Facebook, LinkedIN, and Twitter– it’s where the people are!** These social media outlets allow for direct connections with the public and real time release of information. Scientists should see the potential of these new communication tools and not merely the frivolous ways in which they are currently being used. Blogging isn’t just for parental rants and raves, but a way to curate and/or create new content available to anyone with an internet connection. These articles further describe the professional potential of various online platforms and how scientists can use them to their advantage.

While scientists should always strive to be good communicators of their work, they can’t do it alone. The need for effective science communication has also birthed a new hybrid- the science communicator. Science communicators usually have extensive scientific training (formal degrees or acquired via association with scientists for numerous assignments), but they also have formal communications training (mass communication, journalism, writing). They are essentially translators. Their job is not to ‘dumb it down,’ but to throw out all of the confusing jargon and speak about science in language normal humans can understand. They place highly specialized research in universally meaningful contexts. They explicitly connect science on a personal level to a wider audience compared to scientists.

Scientists and scientific communicators should approach the ‘communication/outreach problem’ just as they would any other research question. It should be addressed with every possible weapon in the arsenal and the latest cutting-edge techniques. Scientists should not be afraid to learn new approaches when it comes to communication and their efforts must be constantly re-evaluated for effectiveness. Oh metrics! What scientist doesn’t like numbers backing up their efforts? Investment in communication does yield dividends in other areas- better writing leads to better grant proposal reviews and publications; clearer oral communication helps with teaching. As with experimental research, scientists should be building on existing communication strategies to further their reach.

I hope that one day Science can be the new Justin Bieber*** because Science is important and everyone should know why… in real time.

Scientists, it’s time to speak up. People of Earth, prepare to have your newsfeeds filled with useful information on scientific research.****

Johnna

*Yes, scientists like numbers. As much as we would  like to think that raw numbers and data are compelling for you, we are beginning to suspect that’s not the case. We will still use some numbers, but we’ll try to keep them in context and tell a story around them.

**Check out this graphic showing what happens online every 60s. Yeah, that’s where the audience is.

***No, it’s definitely not that scientists want to be pop stars- it would be entirely too dangerous for the paparazzi.

****Don’t worry there will still be plenty of room for cutesy cat pictures (some even have a science twist) and updates on how potty training is going for your friends’ kids.

References and Further Reading:

http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2013/05/15/science-communication-at-a-tipping-point

http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2013/05/22/bridging-the-science-to-society-gap-part-1-reachingoutsci

http://biochemicalsoul.com/2009/03/science-blogging-the-future-of-science-communication-why-you-should-be-a-part-of-it/

http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2013/06/26/finding-an-audience-with-social-media-whether-they-like-it-or-not

http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2013/05/23/the-twenty-fifth-hour-of-the-day-finding-time-for-outreach-part-2-reachingoutsci

http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2013/05/24/unclogging-institutional-conduits-between-research-and-outreach-part-3-reachingoutsci

A closer look at publishing scientific work

I’ve said before that for scientists it doesn’t matter what great experiments you are doing to uncover new truths about our universe if you don’t share that information with others. Scientific publications are the official way scientists communicate with one another and presumably the general public about their research progress. How does this process work and how well is it serving its purpose? Let’s take a closer look.

Practically speaking, here’s a review of how it works. Scientists must first decide which journal among many available is appropriate for this new work. Different journals have different foci and levels of prestige, and you can only submit your work to a single journal at a time. A manuscript is submitted to the journal along with a cover letter to the editor explaining its suitability for publication. If the editor agrees with its suitability, it is sent out to two or three other independent scientists for their reviews and recommendations to accept, revise, or reject the manuscript. The editor synthesizes this information and relates a decision to the corresponding author. The author(s) must then respond to the reviewers’ concerns with additional experiments, clearer writing in the manuscript and/or logical rebuttal in a separate letter responding to reviewers’ comments. If the revised manuscript is still not acceptable for publication, it can be sent to another journal to undergo the same peer-review process. If the revised manuscript is acceptable, then it proceeds through the publication pipeline where the article is further formatted for final publication. Usually accepted manuscripts are available online before they appear in print. Finally, the article appears in a certain volume and issue of the journal, officially part of our collective human knowledge.

Overall, this process is meant to improve the quality of scientific publications by ensuring that new, non-duplicative, high-quality work vetted by independent researchers is presented.  On the surface, the system seems logical enough, but it does have some weaknesses.

Scientists can do a better job at writing up their work. While the audience for these types of publications is other scientists, publications are notorious for their use of jargon requiring all but the most expert of readers to track down multiple other publications from the reference list to understand the current report. At the other end of the spectrum, this medium functions poorly as an outlet for communicating science progress to the public.

There is a premium for articles describing something completely novel and interesting. It’s always great when the science comes together in that way, but these new stories are usually built upon a lot of decidedly un-flashy experimentation. This kind of science is still sound and deserves a place in print. This novelty bias also favors positive results over negative ones. Negative data can sometimes be valuable, but it is always difficult or impossible to publish. Usually the fate of such negative or orphan data (legitimate results that cannot be explained) is to languish in laboratory notebooks, far-removed from being useful for scientific progress. However, some negative data can be useful if for no other reason than it prevents future scientists from investing in similar experiments. Check out this post calling for the publication of negative data.

If two groups of scientists are working on similar projects and one group publishes their findings first, there is no consolation prize for second place. It is exceedingly difficult for the second group to get their results in print. The second-place group must have some aspect of novelty or push the results further than the first in order to be published. This seems reasonable, given that it is counterproductive and uninteresting to read about duplicative research. However, the pressures of these competitive fields can create an environment conducive to flawed or fraudulent research. In this context, having reproducible studies could be useful for verification. As it stands now, agreement is boring and thus unpublishable and disagreement is not allowed; the burden is on the second-to-publish to refute any conclusions of the first-to-publish. Note, that some science is so competitive and similarly paced that duplicative research between two groups can be submitted and reviewed by different journals leading to their appearance in print at roughly the same time.

Finally, there is the matter of access to scientific publications. Traditional scientific journals operate on a subscription basis for access to their articles. Students, faculty and staff have access via their institution’s subscription, but these can vary significantly among universities. Members of professional societies usually have access to the journal(s) sponsored by those groups. Everyone without access must pay for it. This paywall issue is another example of why traditional scientific publications are not a good medium for public science communication. Stay tuned for tomorrow’s post on a new breed of science publication- the open access model.

The beauty of science is that it is continually re-evaluating itself for optimization. The area of scientific publication is poised to undergo a significant systemic evolution as a result of the advent of the information age with new communication technology emerging at a rapid pace. The future challenges related to scientific publications will be increasing the speed at which reliable information is available, improving dissemination to a wider audience in ways that are understandable (without diluting the message too much), finding a place for orphan science experiments and identifying/flagging fraudulent or erroneous publications. Whatever form these new solutions take, must also be in a format stable enough to endure as a piece of accessible information for centuries to come.

Johnna

Extra reading and resources:

Scientific communication: writing up

Scientific writing 101

How journals work (A slideshare presentation from an insider)

The future of research communication