A budding discipline around how science gets read and judged - Aris

Scholarly publishing spent thirty years arguing about access. It has barely begun arguing about what readers do with the paper once they have it. At Aris we call that second argument scholarly interface design. Mike Morrison's community calls it ScienceUX. Either way it is becoming a field, and here is why it is worth your attention.

Decolonising Science Reading List

In the last couple of weeks, a lot of people have been asking me about what I’ve been reading as reference points for my commentary on the…

Guest post: If you’re going to critique science, be scientific about it

Loren K. Mell Editor’s note: This post responds to a Feb. 13 article in The Atlantic, “The Scientific Literature Can’t Save Us Now,” written by Retraction Watch cofounders Adam Marcus and Ivan Oran…

How and When to Involve Crowds in Scientific Research - The Book

This book explores how millions of people can significantly contribute to scientific research. Discover main elements, authors, and who this book is for and why.

From novices to co-pilots: Fixing the limits on scientific knowledge production by accessing or building expertise

As part of the Digital Library's transition to Open Access, new features for researchers are available in the Premium Edition. Click here to learn more.

Managing scientific knowledge for policy on the ATmosphere - Mathew's newsletter

Two types of Atmosphere toolkit are needed if ATScience is to help scientists do science and better communicate it to other audiences: one serving the researchers and their teams, the other focused on aggregation and synthesis.

Why Tacit Knowledge is More Important Than Deliberate Practice

What tacit knowledge is, and why it is the most interesting topic in the study of expertise today.

Prompting Science Report 4: Playing Pretend: Expert Personas Don't Improve Factual Accuracy

<span> <p><span>This is the fourth in a series of short reports that help business, education, and policy leaders understand the technical details of working w

Prompting Science Report 4: Playing Pretend: Expert Personas Don't Improve Factual Accuracy

<span> <p><span>This is the fourth in a series of short reports that help business, education, and policy leaders understand the technical details of working w

A protocol for attributable modular research contribution - Matsuthoughts

I wrote this essay in response to Seemay Chou's call for essays on systemic bottlenecks to science. Structural change in scholarly communication practices i…

The new way we’ll do science

Papers should become human-readable views over a graph of data, tools, results, and certificates.

Breaking the silence

Research on science communication has largely focused on teaching scientists how to describe their studies in ways that interest the public while deepening their understanding of scientific exploration. However, there is another, often overlooked side to science communication—how scientists respond when questions arise about the integrity of their research. Often, the tendency has been to stay silent and wait for any controversy to pass or be resolved in professional forums. But in an age of growing, intense attacks on science, silence can be detrimental to both public trust and the careers of scientists who are under scrutiny. For better or worse, journalists, social media professionals, and the public may take a response of “no comment” as a concession that the critics are correct, so forthright communication about research questions is more urgent than ever.