1. A scientific paper shouldn’t tell a good story but present a strong argument
A recent Impact Blog post extolled the benefits of using a storytelling approach when writing a scientific paper. However, while such an approach might well make for a compelling read, does providing an arresting narrative come at the expense of the reader’s critical engagement with the paper? In his post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Thomas Basbøll argues that the essential "drama" of any scientific paper stems from the conversation that reader and writer are implicitly engaged in.
The blog post says (quote): A scientific paper should be vulnerable to criticism; it should give its secrets away freely, unabashedly. And the best way to do that is, not to organise it with the aim of releasing oxytocin in the mind of the reader, but by clearly identifying your premises and your conclusions and the logic that connects them. You are not trying to bring your reader to a narrative climax. You are trying to be upfront about where your argument will collapse under the weight of whatever evidence the reader may bring to the conversation. Science, after all, is not so much about what Coleridge called "the suspension of disbelief" as what Merton called "organised skepticism"........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. Examining Trust and Truth in Scholarly Publishing
What tools can those of us in scholarly communication use to instil trust in our content? In his post in the ALPSP Blog, Helen Duriez reflects on how the current webinar series Trust, Truth and Scholarly Publishing webinar series came together.
The blog post says (quote): In scholarly publishing, most of our jobs involve disseminating complex information in one form or another. With research output higher than ever before, there's a lot of complicated stuff to explain - not just to academics and practitioners, but to the general public as well. Scientists are used to working with ambiguities, although that doesn’t mean they always navigate the rocky terrain of uncertainty safely. And what about lay audiences, who give as much weight to opinions as to facts?.........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Structure and Description: Five Ways to Create More Accessible Articles and Papers
Looking for ways to create accessible articles and papers for students who utilise assistive technologies? David Read, in his post in the EBSCOpost Blog, provides five tips to creating accessible content in the monthly accessibility series.
The blog post says (quote): The first part of the exercise asks a sighted participant to imagine opening the door of a conference room and taking in the contents by scanning the room and seeing the type of things that one would expect: a conference table, chairs, people, windows, counters with coffee pots, etc. The second part of the exercise asks the participant to open that door and imagine that the lights in the room are off. The participant is then told that they have a small flashlight that they can use to scan the objects in the room one at a time. This is what it is like for the users of AT navigating an article, paper or a web page. This why it’s so important to create great structure and description within our content, so the AT user can more better navigate the content equivalent of a dark room, using only a small flashlight..........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. What's Up with Data Citations?
Publishers are well aware of data citation protocols, so 'lack of resources' is really just vernacular for 'this is not a priority'. Why aren't data citations a priority? Citations to a publisher's journals boost Impact Factors, and hence eventual revenue, so having typesetters carefully curate article citations has a commercial incentive, notes Tim Vines, in his post in the Scholarly Kitchen Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Neglecting data citations is probably short-sighted. Momentum towards open science is building, particularly in response to powerful funder initiatives. Someday soon re-using published data will become commonplace. The extra citations will accrue to journals or publishers with a) lots of datasets to reuse, and b) well established linkages between their articles and data. Moreover, journal performance metrics may one day include data citations (as papers with open data are more robust and more useful to the community), and publishers with weaker data standards will lose out. The success of Crossref is a testament to the scholarly publishing community’s ability to put aside commercial differences and create something that benefits all. The next step everyone needs to take is extending the citation network to datasets........(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply