Edgar Guevara is currently a Conacyt (Mexican National Council of Science and Technology) research fellow at CIACYT-UASLP. His current research interests include non-invasive medical diagnosis, using optical imaging, functional connectivity, spectroscopy, and biomedical signal processing. His past work includes research in epilepsy, cardiovascular disease, spinal cord injury, and white matter injury in newborns. He is a member of the Mexican National System of Researchers (as Level I). He has been awarded two Conacyt scholarships to pursue his graduate studies as well as a repatriation grant. He has been the technical specialist of a telemedicine project (proinnova 2015-2016) as well as of a bilateral cooperation program, Mexico-Quebec (2016-2018). He was also Associate Professor at Universidad de las Américas Puebla Computing, Electronics and Mechatronics Department. His industrial experience includes work in the tyre industry as maintenance supervisor and projects engineer. In 2014, Edgar received his PhD in Biomedical Engineering at École Polytechnique de Montréal, where his thesis earned a special mention from the jury. He holds an MSc degree from Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí and a BS in Electronic Engineering from Instituto Tecnológico de San Luis Potosí (where he was recognized as the top student in 2003).

In this interview, Edgar talks about the things he learned during his personal experience in industry as well as academia. From changing academic institutions to peer reviewing – he shares tips with researchers on a variety of aspects related to a career in research.

Your academic career is interesting! After a Bachelor’s degree in Electronic Engineering, you completed a Master’s in Applied Science, and then went on to complete a PhD in Biomedical Engineering! What made you change fields?

Well, this trajectory was not a straight path: after my Bachelor’s degree, I worked in the tyre industry for over 2 years. The joy of working in the field began to diminish when I realized that it was becoming too repetitive and decided to pursue an academic career. When I found out about non-invasive medical diagnosis during my Master’s, I decided to seriously pursue biomedical engineering. And I guess I found my true calling in academic research.

Researchers are often required to change their institution and this is one aspect they may feel extremely anxious about, especially when it involves moving to another city or country. Do you have any tips for researchers about making the transition from one academic institution to another?

The first and immediate consequence of changing institutional affiliation is a dip in productivity, which occurs naturally because of the time researchers need to spend in doing paper work, adjusting to a new system, changing lifestyles, etc. It is difficult to make the time to write and publish new papers during such phases. I would advise researchers to stay in touch with their seniors/peers from their previous institution(s). Also, consider collaborating with your colleagues from your former institution. That will make the bump in productivity less pronounced when switching institutions. As for moving to another country, I would suggest you learn the local language, even if you plan to carry out and publish research in English. I did that. I learned a new language and that made the adaptation somewhat easier for me.

Could you tell us more about the Mexican National System of Researchers?

This is an incentive-based system implemented by the Federal government. Under this system, the government gives economic incentives to researchers based on their productivity. The specific obligatory duties as part of this system include:

• Carrying out research and documenting this activity through publications (peer-reviewed articles, books, patents, etc.)
• Training highly qualified personnel, by advising students and researchers on their Master’s theses and PhD dissertations
• Performing docent activities, i.e., teaching courses at the institution you are affiliated with, even though you are primarily a researcher
• Working with evaluation committees of research proposals submitted to Conacyt-funded programs

Overall, the system is a great way to boost research in the country.

You’ve published several papers in peer reviewed journals and have considerable experience with the publication process. Now, many young researchers feel that the time taken from journal submission to final decision, including peer review, is too long. Has your experience been the same?

I agree, it usually takes too long (several months on an average), especially when evaluation from your funding agencies is approaching! 

You’ve also acquired a lot of additional training and certifications. How did you make the time to work on these alongside your research?

I think that is part of the job of being a researcher: never stop learning! It is very useful, especially when you are preparing for a new academic course or expanding your research areas. In my case, I am always interested in expanding the extent of my own knowledge and that led me to look for additional training or certifications. And so I didn’t make adjustments around my research schedule to get these additional certifications. Another important advantage of this is that it adds great CV value. So even if getting an additional certification or training means you need to push yourself, do it; the discomfort is temporary. The additional training as well as experience will help you learn how to manage your time better as well as improve your own skill set.

What do you do to stay updated about the latest research in your field?

It’s extremely important for every researcher to stay updated about what’s happening in the field. I follow the social media pages of publishers and societies (such as Nature, Science, Society for fNIRS, OSA, SPIE, IEEE, Elsevier, Springer, etc.) because they post the most recent advances in science. I also visit Google Scholar regularly, where Google’s recommender system highlights newly published papers related to my field.

Your science popularization work sounds interesting. Could you tell us more about it?

In these writings, I try to explain my research to the non-initiated by relating the techniques I use with everyday examples, for instance, Hollywood movies. Once, a student mentioned that he had watched Stephen Spielberg’s movie “Minority Report”, where predictions are recorded from mutant clairvoyants through optical fibers, and he thought that probing brain activity by using light was “sci-fi” until he read my blog post on the topic. So, using the movie proved to be a good example to get more people interested in biomedical optics. This is what I mean by bringing people closer to science by relating it to commonplace things they might be interested in.

The need to bring science closer to the non-academic community, or the tax-payer, is gaining popularity. How aware are researchers about this need? And how easy or difficult would it be for researchers to undertake science popularization activities? And how can they go about it?

We are aware of this need, but science popularization is not awarded/recognized by the evaluation committees of the Mexican National System of Researchers; therefore, we must stay focused on publishing papers and we cannot go full-Sagan, no matter how important science popularization might be. But researchers can take smaller steps, such as talking about their work on social media platforms, or finding avenues to explain their work in simple words.

Based on your experience as a peer reviewer, what are some of the most common mistakes authors make in your field? How could these be avoided?

In my experience, these mistakes tend to be more common in the statistical analyses of optical imaging studies: authors tend to discuss non-significant differences in the analyzed populations, corrections for multiple comparisons are not performed, and they rarely present measures other than p-values, such as effect size. I believe this could be remediated by a good biostatistics course.

Also, when you first started reviewing academic manuscripts, how easy or difficult was it for you to get the hang of it? Do you have any tips for new reviewers?

It wasn’t easy at first. I was also very nervous initially. But as I did more and more reviews, I got more confident about my ability to be a good reviewer. It is a learning process, as everything, but so far, I have learned to be a better critic of my work. In my opinion, a good exercise for a new reviewer would be to review one of her/his own works; it helps develop fine critical thinking, which is one of the key skills a reviewer needs.

Over the years, I have come to think of time spent reviewing as a double-edged sword: on the one hand, I need to dedicate several hours a week to complete a review; on the other hand, much of my reviewing time is spent in familiarizing myself with methods or applications new to me, which helps me expand my knowledge as an early-career scientist. So peer reviewing is time well-spent, I would say.

You play multiple roles: researcher, author, reviewer, consultant, engineer, teacher…which role do you relate to the most? What are you most passionate about?

I am equally passionate about research and teaching. In my former role, I had an overload of teaching courses (an average of over 3 new courses per semester, out of 4) so I started to enjoy both activities a little less. Now, my activities are well balanced and I enjoy them all equally.

Thank you, Edgar, for this interesting conversation!

Case: A senior researcher was taken by surprise when he saw his name as co-author on a published paper that he had not been a part of. The paper had two other co-authors. The researcher wrote to both of them asking for an explanation. He did not receive any response from the corresponding author, but the second author replied saying that his name had also been included without his knowledge, and he had not been involved with the paper in any way. The two researchers then contacted the journal editor and asked him to withdraw their names from the paper. After two weeks, the editor replied that he had tried to get in touch with the corresponding author but received no response. He also mentioned that he would need a signed agreement from all the authors to be able to remove the names of the co-authors. The researchers were at a loss and approached Editage Insights for advice.

Action: On learning about the details of the case, our publication experts looked up the corresponding author’s profile and found that he was a young researcher and this was his second publication. Our publication experts felt that the young author could have added the names of senior researchers as co-authors to increase the chances of acceptance of his paper.

We suggested the researchers that they should try to contact the corresponding author through other channels such as telephone or social media, since there was a possibility that his email account was no longer functional. However, when all efforts to contact the author failed, we suggested that they get in touch with the project leader or the head of the institution to which the corresponding author was affiliated and seek help. They should then inform the editor of this development and forward him the failed attempts at communication with the corresponding author. This might help in strengthening the case and the editor might consider their request. 

The authors wrote to the author’s institution and received a response saying that they would investigate the matter if the editor approached them with a formal request. On forwarding this response to the editor, the editor wrote to the author’s institution and initiated a formal investigation into the misconduct.

Summary: The ICMJE guidelines on the role of authors and contributors explicitly state that the final approval of all co-authors should be taken before submitting a manuscript. However, since the corresponding author has the primary responsibility of communicating with the editor, if this author submits the manuscript without the co-authors’ knowledge, the co-authors may not come to know until after the paper has been published. Young researchers sometimes feel that having senior researchers as co-authors might increase the chances of acceptance of their paper or increase the citation count of the paper once published. However, adding someone as a co-author without his/her approval is highly unethical and could lead to a retraction. Besides, since the retraction notice also states the reason for retraction, the offending author’s reputation will be damaged. Some journals even ban fraudulent researchers from submission for an extended period, sometimes up to 5 years.

According to the ICMJE authorship guidelines, “If authors request removal or addition of an author after manuscript submission or publication, journal editors should seek an explanation and signed statement of agreement for the requested change from all listed authors and from the author to be removed or added.” However, this means that if one of the authors chooses not to respond, the editor will not be able to remove the names of co-authors even if they are convinced that it is a case of misconduct. Editors should, therefore, be more vigilant about authorship issues and should require a signed approval letter from all the co-authors at the time of submission. The ICMJE guidelines also state that “Although the corresponding author has primary responsibility for correspondence with the journal, the ICMJE recommends that editors send copies of all correspondence to all listed authors.” If all editors make this a practice, instances of misconduct of this kind will be detected at an early stage, and not after the paper has been published. Editors need to be more proactive in preventing misconduct rather than taking action after publication.

On 4 December, the Breakthrough Foundation honored physicists, life scientists, and mathematicians with the Breakthrough Prize worth $25 million for making significant contributions to their fields. The Breakthrough Prize is the most lucrative award in science and is often called the “Oscars of science” or the “Silicon Valley’s Nobles.” Each year, the winners are handed the prize in a gala ceremony at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California where scientists mingle with Hollywood celebrities. According to the founders, the award ceremony is “designed to celebrate their achievements and inspire the next generation of scientists.” Winners are chosen by a selection committee that comprises prior Breakthrough Prize laureates.

The winners of 2017 Breakthrough Prize, which is now in its fifth year, are as follows:

• 2017 Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences: Stephen J. Elledge, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School, for discovering how cells respond to DNA damage; Harry F. Noller, a molecular biologist at UC Santa Cruz, for reporting the centrality of RNA to protein synthesis; Roeland Nusse, developmental biologist at Stanford University for his research into the Wnt signalling pathway; Yoshinori Ohsumi, Tokyo Institute of Technology for his research on autophagy; and Huda Yahya Zoghbi, Baylor College of Medicine, for determining the causes underlying the neurological disorders spinocerebellar ataxia and Rett syndrome
• 2017 Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics: Joseph Polchinski, UC Santa Barbara; Andrew Strominger, Harvard University; and Cumrun Vafa, Harvard University were awarded for making significant advances in quantum field theory, string theory, and quantum gravity
• 2017 Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics: Jean Bourgain, the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, for his contribution to geometry of multidimensional spaces, partial differential equations, and number theory 
• Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics: A collective prize awarded to Ronald Drever, physicist emeritus at the CalTech; Kip Thorne, CalTech; and, Rainer Weiss, physicist emeritus at MIT; and their team of 1,012 researchers for the LIGO project that made advances in astronomy and physics trhough its observations of gravitational waves

Apart from these, special prizes called New Horizons worth $100,000 were awarded to promising junior researchers from physics and mathematics fields for producing important work. The winners are:  

• New Horizons in Physics Prize: Asimina Arvanitaki, the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario, Canada; Peter Graham and Surjeet Rajendran who split one prize are from Stanford University and UC Berkeley respectively; Simone Giombi and Xi Yin who split another prize are from Princeton University, and Harvard University respectively; and Frans Pretorius, Princeton University
• New Horizons in Mathematics Prize: Mohammed Abouzaid, Columbia University; Hugo Duminil-Copin, University of Geneva; and Benjamin Elias, University of Oregon; and Geordie Williamson, Kyoto University

Congratulations to all the winners!

The Breakthrough Foundation was founded in 2012 by Sergey Brin of Google; Anne Wojcicki of 23andMe; Jack Ma of Alibaba and his wife, Cathy Zhang; Yuri Milner, an internet entrepreneur, and his wife, Julia Milner; and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and his wife, Priscilla Chan.

References:

Hollywood lends some of its shine to science at the 2017 breakthrough prizes

Black-hole fireworks win big in multimillion-dollar science prizes

Editage Insights invites you to participate in a survey to help the scholarly publishing industry understand what authors think about the academic publishing system and what they would like to change about it.

A few years ago, we conducted a survey-based study that highlighted the gap in understanding between journal editors/publishers and East-Asian authors. Almost all of our efforts are directed toward filling such gaps and bringing the academic publishing community closer together. Through our interactions with researchers, we know that publishing in international journals is a stepping stone to career advancement. We also know that the road to publication is not always easy. While early career researchers and those for whom English is not their first language face the most problems, even senior researchers sometimes find it hard to navigate the publishing system.

This survey aims to identify what you think and expect of the academic publishing process. What works best in the current system? What according to you needs to change? Your views would be invaluable in decrypting the problems in the current publishing landscape. The survey results will be shared widely in the industry.

Author perspectives on the academic publishing process

The library of National Taiwan University (NTU) published a notice on its website saying that from 2017, it planned to discontinue its subscriptions to Elsevier’s ScienceDirect journals, citing high subscription costs as the main reason behind this decision. NTU's President, Vice-Chancellor, and faculty deans have backed the decision.

Currently, NTU’s library subscribes to roughly 4700 journals, including 784 journals published by Elsevier. Elsevier journals constitute about 17% of the library’s subscriptions and about 33% of the total costs. It appears as though NTU has been trying to deal with rising subscription costs for some time as the notice adds that the library already reduced the number of Elsevier journals it subscribed to from 833 in 2008 to 784 in 2016. However, this did not help because the subscription fees increased substantially. Further, according to the notice, if NTU renews its subscription to Elsevier journals for two years (i.e., from 2017 to 2019), Elsevier would also charge a fixed annual hike of 4% in 2018 and 2019. The university realized that this pricing model was unsustainable and would eventually severely affect NTU’s procurement of other critical resources. Thus, it decided to discontinue its subscription to Elsevier journals if both parties would be unable to achieve reasonable price negotiations. The library will also launch a series of measures in order to mitigate the impact of this decision on students, teachers, and staff.

And this is not the first time an institution or library has felt the pinch of high subscription costs. As early as 2012, there were reports of the prestigious Harvard University stating that it was getting increasingly difficult to manage institutional budgets due to high costs of journal subscriptions. The university began encouraging its students “to make their research freely available through open access journals and to resign from publications that keep articles behind paywalls.” Increasing subscription costs could also be one reason why more and more universities  are encouraging students to choose the open access path to publication. This situation — where libraries, universities, other academic institutions, and scholars are finding it increasingly difficult to afford the rapidly and continuously increasing prices of journal subscriptions — has come to be referred to as the serials crisis. While libraries and universities need journals to fulfill the needs of teachers and students, given the increasing journal subscription prices, libraries find it  difficult to manage budgets along with journal subscriptions. 

The notice on the NTU library website mentions that several universities in Taiwan plan to follow suit and discontinue their subscriptions to Elsevier journals. Whether NTU's negotiations with the publisher result in a mutually favorable outcome remains to be seen, but the university library acknowledges that the decision was a difficult, albeit necessary, one and seeks the support of students, teachers, and staff. On a larger level, this points to the need to address this issue at a global level and think of sustainable structural changes to the commercial side of academic publishing. 

For long now, we have recognized the need for ethics training. The word “retraction” is quite a dreaded word and no one wants their manuscript retracted. At the same time, many authors do not know what they can do to avoid retractions and publish ethically.

In the past, we have tried to bridge this knowledge gap by organizing workshops and webinars for authors on ethics. We even have videos hosted on Editage Insights on this topic and a whole section devoted only to ethics!

What was missing though was a guided course that would cover this topic step wise. This online course titled Avoid Retractions: Publish Ethically is an effort to provide guided learning on ethics in a simple and systematic manner allowing participants to learn at their own pace and in their own time.

What’s better is that while the course is priced at USD 49, for the moment we are offering it for free ! And if you score 3 out of 5 or more on the final assessment, you are even eligible for a certificate of completion!

So, what are you waiting for? Enrol for this NOW. 

This is Part 1 of an interview series with Barbara Gastel, science communication specialist, experienced trainer, and acclaimed author.

Most of our interviews are about the journal publishing process and system, trends in publishing, or preparing manuscripts for journal submission. This one stands out, not only because it focuses on science communication as a career option but also because of the way it clarifies the difference between scientific writing and science writing as well as the issues we need to be aware of when it comes to disseminating scientific research to non-academic audiences.

About Barbara Gastel: Barbara Gastel, professor in the Department of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences and the Department of Humanities in Medicine at Texas A&M University, is a well-known name in science communication circles. Barbara coordinates the master's degree program in science and technology journalism at Texas A&M University. She has extensive experience in academic writing training and in science communication, and she has authored three books: Presenting Science to the Public, Teaching Science: A Guide for College and Professional School Instructors, and Health Writer's Handbook. She also has authored with Robert A. Day the latest editions of How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. In addition, she has published many articles and chapters on writing, editing, teaching, and medical topics. From 2000 to 2010, she edited the Council of Science Editors, periodical, Science Editor.

Barbara’s work experience is rich and varied. After earning a BA from Yale University and an MD and an MPH from Johns Hopkins, she did a AAAS mass media fellowship at Newsweek and took up a communication and administration role at the National Institutes of Health. She has also taught science writing at MIT and has been a visiting professor of technical communication at what is now Peking University Health Science Center. Prior to joining Texas A&M University in 1989, she was assistant dean for teaching at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine. From 1996 to 2007, Barbara’s work included helping to direct a program, funded by the China Medical Board of New York, to teach English-language biomedical writing and editing in Asia. She has played lead roles in AuthorAID, a project to help researchers in developing countries to write about and publish their work, ever since its establishment in 2007 at the international development charity INASP.

Barbara has won several accolades, including those from the American Medical Writers Association and the Council of Science Editors. In 2006, she was named an Honored Editor in the Life Sciences by the Board of Editors in the Life Sciences. In 2010, the scientific research society Sigma Xi honored her with the John P. McGovern Science and Society Award. She is also a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

About this segment: Part 1 is all about science communication and the roles played by researchers and journalists in ensuring effective, responsible, and ethical science communication. Barbara talks about the various options available to researchers under the broad umbrella of science communication. She also talks about the current issues in science journalism in the US and shares some advice for researchers trying to communicate their research to a non-academic audience.

Could you take us through your professional life and the different roles you have played throughout your career?

Here’s a brief synopsis:

Ever since childhood, I’ve enjoyed both science and communication. Thus, as a student I took many science classes and was active extracurricularly in writing and editing.

On graduating from medical school, I embarked on a career combining my interests in science and communication. I obtained an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) mass media fellowship, through which I spent a summer helping with the medicine section of Newsweek magazine. I then worked at the National Institute on Aging (part of the US National Institutes of Health) in a position that combined writing, editing, and administration, and I went on to a similar position at the National Center for Health Care Technology. I then worked as a freelance medical writer and editor.

I had long enjoyed teaching, and when an opening arose for a science writing professor, I applied for it. I taught science writing at MIT and then spent two years as a visiting professor of technical communication at what is now Peking University Health Science Center. Upon returning to the United States, I served as assistant dean for teaching at the University of California, San Francisco school of medicine.

Since 1989 I have been a faculty member at Texas A&M University. I coordinate the science communication graduate program and teach in it, and I teach medical humanities at the medical school. I also remain active in international work, such as the AuthorAID project. In addition, I continue to write and edit; for example, I’m lead author of the new edition of How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. I enjoy the variety in my work and just wish there were more hours in the day!

What sparked your interest in science communication? What made you so passionate about it?

I’m not sure exactly what sparked my interest. However, even as a youngster, I especially liked reading books and articles on medical and scientific topics. As I grew older, I found that I enjoyed scientific content but that I enjoyed writing and editing more than lab work. Also, I tend to be a generalist, and I like the fact that writing and editing let me learn about many scientific areas rather than focusing on a specific area of research. I also believe that writing about science, and helping others to do so, contribute importantly to society. And for me, science communication—though challenging—is satisfying, rather like doing a puzzle that draws on a wide range of knowledge and skills.

That’s an interesting analogy. Since you mentioned science communication, what are the various career options researchers could explore under the broad umbrella of science communication? At what stage should they start considering these options?

Wow, that’s a big question! In fact, I’ve written chapters on the subject. Briefly, some of the (sometimes overlapping) options are the following:

• Writer or editor for popular media (print, broadcast, or online)
• Public information specialist at a university, research institute, or other institution
• Communication staffer at a professional association in the sciences
• Communication staffer at a science-related company
• Editor at a journal
• Grant-proposal writer
• Editor helping researchers to refine their writing before submission
• Book author or book editor
• Freelance writer or editor
• Teacher of science communication

Often, people serve simultaneously in more than one of these roles or move from one such role to another.

People can start considering such career options at nearly any stage. Occasionally I meet high school students who already are considering science communication careers. Other people start considering these options in college or graduate school, as postdoctoral fellows, or in early or mid-career. Some researchers even start focusing primarily on science communication after retirement. I guess it’s almost never too late.

How would you encourage young/early-career researchers to develop an interest in science communication/journalism?

Young or early-career researchers can develop science communication knowledge and skills in various ways. As a start, I’d recommend reading lots of good science writing. Especially for individuals considering science-communication careers, I’d also suggest reading books and articles on science communication and perhaps taking some classes in this field. If a researcher is indeed seeking such a career, a graduate or certificate program in science communication can be valuable. In addition, I would encourage people to pursue science communication internships. Also, professional organizations, both in science and in science communication, can be a resource for developing science-communication interests, knowledge, and skills and for making contacts in this field. There’s lots out there!

In recent times, there has been a lot of talk about how media misleads the non-academic community by misreporting scientific data or facts. What are your views on this?

This subject is certainly complex. In brief, however, my view is that, overall, the major popular media do a reasonably good job of representing scientific content. Of course, not all media do so, and occasionally even the best media may need to issue minor corrections.  I believe that to promote solid reporting of science, researchers need to do their part. Doing so includes being accessible to reporters, presenting content to them in ways well suited for general audiences, and being willing to work with public information staff to promote high-quality coverage.

Journalism is closely tied to the concept of social and ethical responsibility. What are some of the things science journalists need to remember about reporting responsibly and ethically?

This too is a big question. As you may know, some organizations for journalists or specifically for science communicators have codes of ethics. People interested in this topic may find it useful to look at some of these codes. A few things that science journalists should remember about reporting responsibly and ethically are the following: Do your homework; for example, if possible read in depth. Keep asking until you understand; it’s better to seem ignorant to a source than to get something wrong. Remember, though, that you’re writing to serve the public, not to please your source. Strive for accuracy and balance, though realizing that these are complex concepts rather than fully achievable ideals. Resist the easy path of reporting only on items covered in news releases. Keep learning, both about journalism and about science.

In your opinion, what are some of the issues in science journalism today?

Let me mention three issues in the field:

Here in the United States, one serious issue is the downsizing of science reporting staffs at major media. As newspaper revenues have declined, many newspapers have decreased the number of science reporters—or dismissed their only science reporter. As a result, there tends to be less science coverage, especially on the local level, and the coverage tends to be by reporters less qualified to cover science. To me, it would make more sense to decrease the number of sports reporters instead. But among American newspaper readers, apparently more interest exists in sports than in science.

Another issue, at least in the United States, is the fragmentation of the media. For example, whereas previously there were just a few main broadcast networks, now there are almost countless channels. On the plus side, the current situation gives consumers more choice of content and many more hours of science content. But on the minus side, it allows consumers to avoid exposure to science content or even to choose media that misrepresent science, for example by claiming that climate change does not exist or by perpetuating myths about vaccines.

Finally, a longstanding but still timely issue is the role of the science journalist: Is the role of the science journalist to inform? To educate? To entertain? To advocate? To critique? A combination? Sometimes one and sometimes another? Something else? And who should decide? This issue—about which researchers and journalists might sometimes differ—seems unlikely to go away. Perhaps one’s view in this regard influences one’s choice of media to consume.

What is the relationship between academic publishing and science popularization? And how can scientists communicate with journalists effectively?

The relationship between academic publishing and science popularization is complex. However, let me note some aspects. First, academic journals are the source of much of the science news in the popular media. Second, researchers themselves sometimes first learn of new research via the popular media. Third, with the advent of social media, the relationship has become more complex.

A presentation that I gave just last month contained tips for researchers on communicating with journalists. Here are the tips:

• Know about the reporter and venue before deciding whether to accept an interview.
• Find out the assignment and timetable.
• Respond promptly.
• If unavailable, try to suggest someone else.
• Provide visuals and written background.
• Present information as you would to the public.
• If questions are off track, redirect them.
• Tactfully check the reporter’s understanding.
• Offer, but don’t demand, to check drafts.

If you’d like, sometime I can elaborate on these points.

Could you share some advice for researchers trying to communicate their research to the non-academic community?

Conveniently, my presentation last week also contained advice in this regard. Here it is:

• Analyze the audience.
• Relate your content to what people know and care about.
• In general, use simple, common language.
• Define unfamiliar terms.
• Present sizes effectively.
• Include human interest (people).
• Use narrative (storytelling).
• Consider the visual element.
• Provide access to further information.
• Check with the audience.

Sometime I’d be glad to elaborate on these points as well.

Thanks for the tips, Barbara!

Watch this space for the next part in the series, where Barbara talks about common manuscript writing mistakes authors make and how these issues can be avoided.