Infographic: How Science Is Reaching Out

Infographic - sciencepod

SciencePOD infographic created for Elsevier Chemistry. Credit Elsevier at https://www.elsevier.com/physical-sciences-and-engineering/chemistry/journals/new-chemistry-research

Quality infographics make an impact with wider audiences

Alice Rolandini Jensen, SciencePOD writer

Science that makes an impact reaches many people – in the scientific community and beyond. Getting complex concepts and results out there in a way that captivates and inspires is challenging. And with competing discoveries just a click or a swipe away, what can scientists (and science publishers) do to increase the reach of their work?

One effective way is with infographics. Infographics can do something text alone cannot – quickly catch the attention of thousands of eyes! With images and just a few words, infographics can show the overall results or key message of a scientific paper. But they need to be eye-catching and intriguing, to entice people on Twitter, LinkedIn or Instagram, for example, to click and find out more.

As a science writer and creator of infographics, my task is to condense a scientific paper –  that may have taken years of work by many people – into a picture. Having a background in science (in this case, chemistry) not only helps me understand scientific research papers, but it also helps me ask the right questions of researchers and scientists. When researchers confirm the most important aspects of their work, this helps me decide on an image, or series of images, to best convey their findings. I take a minimalist approach to text and rely as much as possible on an image to catch the eye and guide the onlooker.

Take, for example, the infographic on an environmental odour control map that I worked on for SciencePOD. The main point to get across was the idea that an ‘electronic nose’, works much like our own. This is something people can relate to and understand. Therefore, I chose to include a human head but with circuitry in its nose. This leads the ‘brain’ to create a map of odours in different geographic areas. The text in the infographic is then used to add further detail and basic explanation of the core image.

Moving from concept to actual design can be challenging. To get my ideas across to the designer, I often draw a quick sketch and include sample images. What follows is a productive iterative process through which the SciencePOD designer brings my infographic concept to life! We are a team of experts working towards the same goal. It is also important to ensure that the scientists behind the research are happy with the results. A researcher will often make very useful suggestions on the wording of the text for an infographic, for example.

Throughout the process, I always keep the target audience in mind. Often this means making sure that the image and text work well together and do not become overly technical so as to attract a wider audience and maximise the impact of the infographic. Creating infographics like this one, allows researchers and publishers to reach more people and to do so through more media channels. It’s an important way to get work noticed and understood in this fast-paced technological era.

ARJensen_photo

Dave Kochalko interview – how technology could restore trust in science publishing

Speeding up the research process, according to ARTiFACTS, requires turning research communication on its head by tracking, recording and sharing findings in small fragments and in real-time even before publishing them as full journal articles

Bashing science publishers have gone mainstream. Today, science publishing and publishing practices are often described using a lexicon reflective of a lack of trust: predatory journal, publication bias, adverse incentives, peer review problems, rip-off publishing, and the alliterative science-stymying paywall. Add to this the ‘tug of war’ over Open Access and the potential effects of the ambitious initiative Plan S, and one has to ask, how can trust in science publishing be restored?

This issue was discussed at this year’s NFAIS conference, on 14th February 2019, by Dave Kochalko, Co-Founder and Chief Academic Officer at Cambridge, Massachusetts-based scholarly publishing start-up ARTiFACTS. In a podcast interview with SciencePOD, Kochallko talks about findings solutions to this lack of trust. He believes the answer lies in refocusing on the science and scientists themselves. Specifically, he acknowledges that published work in the form of research papers continues to be valuable and relevant. However, he sees too much emphasis still being placed on publishing in high-impact journals. Instead, he believes, the emphasis should be on whether the scientist and the research team are practising “good science.”

Kochalko defines this good scientific practice as sharing results and research that, “can be verified, reproduced, built upon by other researchers.” And, he adds, “doing so in a more timely fashion.” This means that instead of attributing parenthood to an idea at the stage of a research paper, the genesis of ideas should be recorded and attributed in a far more granular manner to much smaller chunks of findings, as soon as they are formulated in a lab book, for instance.

What ARTiFACTS does is to allow scientists to “do three fundamental, yet powerful things,”  Kochalko points out. First, to establish proof of existence, authorship and confirm the provenance of their work at any time. Second, to protect and manage the IP they created while facilitating knowledge sharing. Third, to receive valid breakproof attribution and credit assignment at any point for any type of research output.

In doing so, scientists can make their findings available throughout the entire research process and not just after a protracted publication process. This is facilitated by ARTiFACTS use of graph database and distributed ledger (or blockchain) technology. The result, according to Kochalko, will be a “deep historical archive of published and discovered findings” that is accessible to the broader scientific community.

Science publishers are coming around to this refocus on the scientist and the tools and technologies that can help make this happen. “We’ve been very pleased that the reaction from publishers has moved from scepticism to thoughtful curiosity,” says Kochalko. This might be taken as a sign that the industry has acknowledged that not only trust in science publishers but in science itself requires turning attention away from a journal brand to what Kochalko describes as the “creative discoveries and contributions of the scientist.”

 

 

Photo credit: Dave Kochalko

Podcast, Ivan Oransky, RetractionWatch: Retractions are like red flags highlighting infractions in science

Photo credit: SciencePOD.

 

Keeping a record of the retraction of research publications made it easier for journalistic coverage dissecting the infractions occurring within science publishing. “What I see that’s important, is not just coverage of individual cases, people are actually trying to put this all together. They’re filing public record requests because that’s something we’re not thinking of.” That’s according to RetractionWatch, co-founder, Ivan Oransky,  who started this initiative as a blog in 2010 with a single purpose in mind: making the peer-review process more transparent.

Listen to the edited version of the recording by SciencePOD.org of a recent presentation Oransky made at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. This event, held on 20th June 2018, was co-organised by the Irish Science & Technology Journalists’ Association and the Science Gallery Dublin.

Oransky recalls the motivation that originally animated him and co-founder Adam Marcus in highlighting the mishaps of the peer-review process within academic communities. “Those of you who may be familiar with PubMed, Medline or Web of Science, you go to any of those you’ll find under 6,000 (retractions)… we [at Retraction Watch] have 3 times as many,” notes Oransky. Today, the RetractionDataBase.org site holds 17,500 retractions –and it is still growing. While retractions are rare, Oransky believes there is a screening effect attached to them.

For a sense of scale, the two countries in the world with the most retractions are China and the US. To provide an in-depth look at this, Oransky and his team compiled a leaderboard. Each of these instances are linked with a comprehensive story following the original publication.

Many varieties of malpractice

Oranksy highlights a few of the problems surrounding retractions found in the peer-review community. At the time of this recording, RetractionWatch had cataloged, 630 retractions specifically due to e-mail fraud by submitting a fake peer-reviewer’s e-mail. How does this work? An academic submits a paper to a journal for submission. When the journal comes back to ask for an e-mail to reference for peer-review, rather than submitting a genuine e-mail, the academic offers a fake e-mail, which then closes the loop between him or herself and the journal. Thus, eliminating the need for a peer-review. Back in 2000, only about 5% of papers were retracted, due to e-mail fraud.

Another area of malpractice occurs through duplication of results in different journals, not to be confused with plagiarism. Duplication is giving undue weight to a scientific conversation within the literature. This means when you try to conduct a scientific analysis on a topic, you’re looking at publications publishing the same thing multiple times without adding value to the topic.

All knowledge is provisional

To assume a paper should be retracted because the results aren’t reproducible is odd; but, it does occur. This shows that there is no perfect system for scholarly publishing. And that keeping a tap on retractions can help to uncover unsavoury behaviour among scientists.

Ultimately, this red flag activity leads to stronger science, as researchers are aware of the potential downsides of naming and shaming authors of retracted papers.

Enjoy the podcast!

 

Photo credit: SciencePOD.org

Do science girls have an image problem?

Hot young girls in high heels. Powdered make-up exploding across bubbling and steamy apparatus. Equations written in lipstick. Sounds like a normal day in the lab for most women scientists. Except it isn’t. The scenes are, of course, snippets from the roundly and soundly derided ‘Science: It’s a girl thing’ video released to shock and awe–the bad kind–in 2012.

Born of a well-meaning but inherently flawed campaign from the European Commission, it has been criticised and parodied to the point that further condemnation for reinforcing stereotypes would be like pulling a girl’s hair and stealing her chocolate. Marie Curie’s appearance may arguably not be as attractive as a catwalk models, but if you could find visual props to picture a beautiful mind, she would be a shining star.

To be fair to the EC, it’s not hard to see why they thought they had to do something: a She Figures 2012 report points out that the share of women graduating at PhD level now stands at 46%, but women account for only 33% of researchers in the EU. And while 59% of EU graduate students in 2010 were female, only 20% of EU senior academicians were women.

Is the image of women scientists to blame for the lack of popularity of science studies? It is clear the problems begin before university and academia. The UK’s Institute of Physics has found that for the last two decades in the UK only 20% of physics students past age 16 have been girls, despite about equal success for boys and girls in physics and science exams leading to that point.

How much could changing the image of female scientists do to solve the two problems that persist? Namely, boosting girls’ involvement in science from an early age. And removing the barriers to top positions for female scientists when they get there.

A classic remedy to anyone with an image problem would be to try and alter that image through advertising campaigns. But do these get-girls-to-do-science campaigns really work? “I don’t know,” says Claudine Hermann, Vice President of the European Platform for Women Scientists who in 1992 was the first woman to be appointed as a professor at military engineering school École Polytechnique, in Paris, France.

The trouble is that such campaign often fails to convince. Hermann has spent the past 20 years immersed in the challenge and says there have been plenty of campaigns to convince girls—and boys—to go into science “But they have not been very efficient,” she says, “You cannot know what had happened if campaign had not existed.” Sounds like the perfect area to test a policy change through a randomised trial. Others concur that advertising has obvious limitations. “I don’t think one video will make any difference,” says sociologist Lousie Archer from King’s College London, who, like most, is not a great fan of the ‘Science: It’s a girl thing’ video. But she says she could see what they were trying to do.

Rather, the image problem may just be the tip of the iceberg, where deeply engrained cultural and social perceptions are slow to evolve. “Our research shows the masculine image of science is an issue and ‘girly’ girls are much less likely to aspire to science careers than ‘non-girly’ girls, even though they both like science at school,” she explains. This suggests that young girls displaying an interest for science may fear that they will be regarded as uncool by boys.  “Analysis shows single sex schools are most effective way of getting girls to study physics A level,” notes Archer. “Our surveys of over 9000 primary and 5600 secondary pupils show that the ‘brainy’ image of science is also a key part of the problem and can be particularly off putting for girls,” says Archer. “And social class is as much an issue as gender.”

Confirmation of the overwhelming impact of culture and social influences can be found in Eastern Europe, after the Second World War. The communist ideology dictated equal ability and opportunity between the sexes as society forged on as one powered by engineering and science. Indeed, the EU expert group Enwise (Enlarge Women in Science to East) published a reportconcluding that the availability of childcare facilities and state support for working mothers led to the a significant proportion of well qualified women in high profile roles, particularly in science.

Unfortunately, as the Communist Bloc unravelled so did funding, infrastructure and many of the benefits, although still leaving a higher proportion of women researchers in science than in the West today. This was particularly true in countries with smaller populations, who face challenges such as being frozen out of more competitive, high-cost research programmes. As Hermann notes, “it’s complex.” A Czech report from 2008, provides an update of the recent status of women in science in the Czech republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

The issue is not just about stereotypes, however, and could also be linked to a widespread lack of knowledge of the high transferability of science qualifications. “Most young people don’t realise science qualifications are useful for a wide range of jobs both in and out of science,” says Archer.

Perhaps, the lack of role model is also to blame. Hermann also says that under-representation of women scientists in the media is also a problem. From TV appearances to museum exhibits, they often fail to recognise the role women play in science.

On the positive side, women already in science today stand a better chance to climb the career ladder than before. Hermann cites programmes in Switzerland and Ireland that led to more women professors. “If there is a state policy and real funds things can change,” she says. “But if you just speak there will be very slow evolution. You need political will.”

And for political action you need increased awareness that there is a problem, which has gained much more prominence according to physicist Athene Donald from the University of Cambridge, UK. She cites the Athena Swan Charter for women in science, applied for and awarded to universities, as an action that “has certainly raised everyone’s awareness and also the stakes.” A 2009 winner of The L’Oréal-UNESCO Awards for Women in Science and a noted blogger on the topic, Donald says actions are needed too.  “This isn’t about generational change. This action will be more important at later career stages, university and beyond.” Actions that might work right now include not writing ‘Science: It’s a girl thing’ in lipstick on the EC revamped website.

Original article published on EuroScientist.com.