Total SciComm: A Strategy for Communicating Open Science

Ho, Manh-Toan; Ho, Tung Manh; Vuong, Quan‐Hoang

doi:10.3390/publications9030031

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Others have argued that journalism could similarly mitigate the potential risk of misinformation by identifying and providing early, critical coverage of the preprints that are most likely to cause considerable damage to the public ( Stollorz, 2021 ). This dual role of journalism—as both a cause and antidote for the spread of preprint-based misinformation—aligns with recent proposals that communicating OS outputs to public audiences can be both enriching (i.e., if it improves public perceptions, awareness, and knowledge of science) and misleading (i.e., if research outputs are not communicated with care) ( Ho et al ., 2021 ; Vignoli & Rörden, 2019 ).…”

Section: Journalists’ Use Of Open Access Publications and Preprints D...supporting

confidence: 69%

Making science public: a review of journalists’ use of Open Access research

Fleerackers,

Chtena,

Pinfield

et al. 2024

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science journalists are uniquely positioned to increase the societal impact of open research outputs by contextualizing and communicating findings in ways that highlight their relevance and implications for non-specialist audiences. Yet, it is unclear to what degree journalists use open research outputs, such as open access publications or preprints, in their reporting; what factors motivate or constrain this use; and how the recent surge in openly available research seen during the COVID-19 pandemic has affected this. This article examines these questions through a review of relevant literature published from 2018 onwards—particularly literature relating to the COVID-19 pandemic—as well as seminal articles outside the search dates. We find that research that explicitly examines journalists’ engagement with open access publications or preprints is scarce, with existing literature mostly addressing the topic tangentially or as a secondary concern, rather than a primary focus. Still, the limited body of evidence points to several factors that may hamper journalists’ use of these outputs and thus warrant further exploration. These include an overreliance on traditional criteria for evaluating scientific quality; concerns about the trustworthiness of open research outputs; and challenges using and verifying the findings. We also find that, while the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged journalists to explore open research outputs such as preprints, the extent to which these explorations will become established journalistic practices remains unclear. Furthermore, we note that current research is overwhelmingly authored and focused on the Global North, and the United States specifically. We conclude with recommendations for future research that attend to issues of equity and diversity, and more explicitly examine the intersections of open access and science journalism.

show abstract

Section: Journalists’ Use Of Open Access Publications and Preprints D...supporting

confidence: 69%

Making science public: a review of journalists’ use of Open Access research

Fleerackers,

Chtena,

Pinfield

et al. 2024

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, it is essential that science communicators understand that the way in which they communicate does indeed influence how their message is received and disseminated beyond the scientific community. In other words, to disseminate scientific findings to a broader audience, scientists may need-and are, perhaps, already expected-to become "fluent" in the many languages of science communication beyond traditional publications (e.g., blog posts or video essays; for a discussion of science communication in other formats, see Ho et al 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Affect in science communication: a data-driven analysis of TED Talks on YouTube

Fischer,

Jeitziner,

Wulff

2024

Humanit Soc Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science communication is evolving: Increasingly, it is directed at the public rather than academic peers. Understanding the circumstances under which the public engages with scientific content is therefore crucial to improving science communication. In this article, we investigate the role of affect on audience engagement with a modern form of science communication: TED Talks on the social media platform YouTube. We examined how two aspects of affect, valence and density are associated with public engagement with the talk in terms of popularity (reflecting views and likes) and polarity (reflecting dislikes and comments). We found that the valence of TED Talks was associated with both popularity and polarity: Positive valence was linked to higher talk popularity and lower talk polarity. Density, on the other hand, was only associated with popularity: Higher affective density was linked to higher popularity—even more so than valence—but not polarity. Moreover, the association between affect and engagement was moderated by talk topic, but not by whether the talk included scientific content. Our results establish affect as an important covariate of audience engagement with scientific content on social media, which science communicators may be able to leverage to steer engagement and increase reach.

show abstract

“…Social media represent a wonderful strategy to bypass the bureaucracy and connect directly with the public [Jia et al, 2017], and as a rapid communication and discussion tool. However, they do carry serious risks of misinformation [Ho, Ho and Vuong, 2021]. For these platform to achieve a meaningful impact, beyond acting as a substitute for in-person SciCom, they should be treated with professionalism and rigor [Jones et al, 2019].…”

Section: Public Reachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiencing science communication from a local perspective: an analysis of the volunteer SciCom groups in Chihuahua, Mexico

Carreño-Márquez¹,

Cereceres-Aguirre²

2022

JCOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) ranks Mexico in one of the last places in science performance [OECD, 2019]. This has been a concern for some local science communication groups (SCGs) in small and medium-sized cities, whose mission is to fill this disparity by performing science communication (SciCom) activities. The SCGs were contacted via a survey to collect information about their dynamics and public reach. A descriptive analysis enabled the identification of the logistics and coordination issues found among SCGs. Consequently, a local network of science communication groups is advised to reinforce their impact.

show abstract

Total SciComm: A Strategy for Communicating Open Science

Cited by 9 publications

References 40 publications

Making science public: a review of journalists’ use of Open Access research

Making science public: a review of journalists’ use of Open Access research

Affect in science communication: a data-driven analysis of TED Talks on YouTube

Experiencing science communication from a local perspective: an analysis of the volunteer SciCom groups in Chihuahua, Mexico

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About