-
Importance of communication
Summed up in what is known as the Zel'dovich principle: "Without publicity there is no prosperity..." (a russian physicist)
- Science journals usually one of two models:
- Pay to read: eg wiley, Elsevier sell journal subscriptions to libraries
- Pay yo publish: open access
-
Pivotal role of peer review
- Peer reviewed journal articles- process involves:
- 1. Writing up work and submitting it to the editor of a journal with a covering letter
- 2. The editor then decides whether it should 'go out for review', based upon;
- The subject matter
- Adequacy of language use
- In some cases, it having low similarity to other published work as shown by similarity detection software.
- 3. If the submitted article survives these initial stages, editor sends it to 2 researchers in a closely related field, asking them to read the paper and decide whether it is worthy of publication.
- Reviewer writes back to the editor with their assessment (is it original? How is the science? is it understandable? Is it significant? Is it within the scope of the journal?)
- Reviewer writes comments that are sent back to the author to help them to improve the paper or to clarify points that are unclear.
- Fates of papers submitted for publication:
- Rejected outright
- Accepted with major revisions (may then need re-reviewing)
- Accepted with minor revisions
- Occasionally accepted without change.
- Process can take few weeks to several months.
- Peer review acts as a filter.
- Ensures research is properly verified before being published and improves quality of the research.
- Rigorous review by other experts helps to hone key points and correct inadvertent errors and adds to the trust worthiness of science.
- Published articles have been certified as scientifically sound by 2 people who specialise in the area ('peers').
- Once work is published, others can assess its significance and build upon or demolish the ideas put forward.
-
Authorship protocols
- Building a publication list is essential for employment as a research scientist.
- The Vancouver protocol for authorship:
- Author should have contributed to all of the following:
- 1. The data- by way of ideas, collection, analysis and/or interpretation
- 2. The writing- drafting or editing
- 3. Approval of the final version- that is, should have seen all content and take their share of responsibility for the work
- The protocol:
- Specifically excludes collecting data, getting grant and supervising the group as being on their own enough to qualify for authorship. Together would be sufficient.
- States that each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
- Does not set out a formula for order of authors. By convention, journals list authors in order of the value of their contribution.
- Often leader of the team is listed last.
- In some, alphabetically.
-
Research misconduct
- The fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing or reviewing research, or in reporting research result.
- Plagiarism:
- Tarnishes reputations
- rewards dishonesty
- breaches our social contract with the community
- and distorts the scientific process
- Plagiarism can include:
- Copying someone else's words, ideas, diagrams and figures from textbooks or online sources.
- Copying the structure of someone else's essay/paper/proposal/research
- recycling your work that been previously submitted for another assignment.
-
Why scientists need to communicate to other audiences
- Reasons for communicating science to a non scientist audience can be classed as:
- Economic
- Democratic
- Cultural
- Political
- Utilitarian
- The goal is the translation of science to:
- products
- thoughts
- health
- activity
- innovation
- interest
- enrich people's lives
- Tips for communicating with non-specialists
- KISS (keep it simple stupid) applies to most forms of communication
- Minimise or avoid jargon, complicated numbers and formulae.
- Limit yourself to a few main points and avoid side issues.
- Know your subject and be enthusiastic about it.
- Know your audience and any intermediates (eg. interviewers). Know why they are present, their affiliations and the correct way of addressing them.
- Do not patronise anyone.
- Use examples, analogies and/or images but don't overuse them.
“Communicating science effectively is important in achieving an innovative Australia.”
-
Conferences: scientist to scientist
- Scientists communicate with other scientists through:
- Primary research articles
- Literature reviews
- Conferences
- Social Media
- Conferences are a great way to:
- Meet other scientists
- Hear the latest
- Network
Conferences consist of a few longer talks and a selection of short talks. Most presented as posters except for maths.
-
Find out following before you start preparing your talk
- Who is your audience, why are they there? Will there be 10 or 1000 people?
- What is your message? What do the audience need to know? Is there a theme to the conference that you need to emphasis? How does it fit with other talks in your sessions?
- Why are your audience there, and why do you want to communicate with them?
- Where is the talk? Find your room. Is there a microphone? What are the acoustics like? How long will it take you to get there?
- How long? Check how long you have. 10 min talk only one point, 15 min maybe 2 or 3
-
Ingredients for effective communication
- Convey passion, conviction (the purpose for you work/talk), optimism
- Good stories are clear concise and captivating
-
Organising you content for presentation
- Get the audience's attention
- Tell them what to expect (signposting)
- Tell your story- break into points
- Sum up
- End with something outward looking (take home message)
-
Final checks for presentation
- What does this audience need to know?
- Whats the dress code?
- Check how long you have, does it include questions?
- Check your AV and computer equipment, software compatibility (Mac/PC? Versions?)
|
|