1. Getting Started with Science Communication
Communicating your science with different audiences is a vital part of academic research. However, science communication is a vast landscape and knowing where to start and how to be effective can be quite daunting. Sam Illingworth, in his guest post in the Altmetric Blog, discusses Top 5 Science Communication Tips based on his experiences.
The blog post says (quote): One of the easiest traps to fall into when first developing and delivering your own science communication initiatives is to lose sight of the scientific method. Far too many of these initiatives are guilty of delivering what seems like a ‘cool’ idea without sufficient engagement with why it has been developed or how its effectiveness will be measured. Adopting a rigorous scientific approach in which you define a hypothesis, test it, and then either reject or accept the hypothesis based on the results of the test will ensure that you maximise the effectiveness of your approach. Such an approach will also serve to benefit the wider scientific community, and will mean that you are well placed to start writing up your initiative as a piece of academic research........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Badges? We Don’t Need No Stinking Preprint Badges!
Authors submitting papers to PLOS journals can now opt to transfer their manuscript automatically to the bioRxiv preprint server. By incorporating post-publication validation badges into preprints, bioRxiv begins to transform itself from a preprint server into a publishing platform, notes Phil Davis, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): By badges, PLOS and CSHL do not mean that a manuscript will arrive with a stamp that reads "Submitted to PLOS Biology" or "Under Peer Review at PLOS Biology". Similarly, there will be no badge telling a reader that the manuscript was rejected by PLOS Biology and transferred to PLOS ONE. The preprint will look like every other preprint in the system. It will get assigned a bioRxiv DOI, not a PLOS DOI. From the standpoint of the reader, there is no way to tell how the manuscript got into bioRxiv. Nonetheless, the manuscript transferred initially by PLOS to bioRxiv on behalf of its author may not resemble the paper that is eventually published. Between submission and final publication, there may be rounds of revisions to the manuscript that are not reflected in the original transferred document. While the publisher took responsibility screening the original submission, it takes no responsibility in the version that is left in the bioRxiv.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Analysing Altmetric data on research citations in policy literature – the case of the University of Sheffield
One of the sources of attention Altmetric.com tracks is the number of times research outputs have been cited in policy literature. In their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog, Andy Tattersall and Chris Carroll explored the case of the University of Sheffield and what the data says about the impact of its research on national and international policy.
The blog post says (quote): Altmetric.com continues to add further policy sources to its database to trawl for citations. As a result, it should follow that the sample of 1,463 research outputs will not only grow with more fresh policy citations, but as older research citations are identified through new policy sources of attention. This work also highlights the importance of research outputs having unique identifiers so they can be tracked through altmetric platforms; it is certain that more of the research will be cited in policy, but if no unique identifier is attached, especially to older outputs, it is unlikely the Altmetric.com system will pick it up..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. How Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Would Work
Should works done by artificial intelligence be protected by copyright? Dave Davis, in his post in the CCC Blog, explores how AI would apply to today's copyright laws.
The blog post says (quote): Of course, laws can be changed, and copyright laws should be changed when new circumstances warrant. Would it be better for society - would it help achieve the purposes of copyright - if protections were extended to AI-generated works? As it says in the Constitution, the purposes of copyright may be thought of as a quid pro quo - in order "to promote the progress of science" certain rights are "secured" to authors [and other creators]. In that frame, copyright protection has both a public and a private purpose. The text of the clause seeks to strike a balance. “The limited scope of the copyright holder’s statutory monopoly, like the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts."..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply