The SCICOMM 25 (5.4.16)

Shutterstock: http://ow.ly/IbV7h

Shutterstock: http://ow.ly/IbV7h

Welcome to the SCICOMM 25!

This is where I pull together 25 (or more) of the most talked about science communication stories, determined by the engagement rate of stories I’ve shared on Twitter. Many are written by the world’s leading science communicators.

Some offer tips and advice, while others tackle important issues we need to discuss and debate. All of them are worth checking out.

I hope you enjoy this month’s list, which includes posts I found during the month of April 2016

NOTE: You’ll notice I’ve dropped Twitter handles from this month’s story list. Unfortunately, many sites/blogs fail to list Twitter handles for authors – and I no longer have time to search for them. In order to continue producing this monthly post, I need to be as efficient as possible. Thank you for understanding.


Top Stories:

  1. This renowned mathematician is bent on proving academic journals can cost nothing.
  2. How to seriously read a science paper. t.co/8Nr5wA9Sgr
  3. The weird & wonderful world of academic twitter: Accounts that mock, self-ridicule & make academia smile.
  4. Hope Jahren is on Time’s list of the world’s most influential people. 
  5. Should science only be reported by journalists with a science degree?
  6. The vitriol that women and minorities experience online. 
  7. How does the public really feel about science and research? t.co/FrCiIZQIY5
  8. Constructively dealing with trolls in science communication. t.co/qtchxaywtj
  9. Why the world needs more women in scientific research. 
  10. The black market in academic papers – and why it’s spooking publishers. 
  11. Writing for impact: How can we write about our research in a way that leads to meaningful change?
  12. There’s a crisis in scientific research—and it’s making science better. 
  13. Why do academics choose useless titles for articles and chapters? Four steps to getting a better title. t.co/PvOagSKZYG
  14. What happens to sci comms graduates?
  15. Science for parents: An interview with Tara Haelle and Emily Willingham.
  16. ‘If America Wants to Kill Science, It’s on Its Way’
  17. Student researchers. Student co-authors. Research and teaching go hand-in-hand.
  18. Blogging to establish your digital identity. 
  19. It’s official: Boaty McBoatface is the winning name for this $300 million research vessel. (see # 25) 
  20. Here are 15 indispensable academic Twitter accounts. 
  21. Using Twitter in science: Advice for graduate students. t.co/kTGjcbype5v
  22. The reaction to Justin Trudeau’s explanation of Quantum Computers shows we should raise our expectations. 
  23. Mapping the online life of science stories. 
  24. Review: ‘Lab Girl,’ Hope Jahren’s road map to the secret life of plants.
  25. Boaty McBoatface: tyrants have crushed the people’s will. 

Honorable Mention:

  1. Why our peer review system is a toothless watchdog. t.co/MnY7fEa9cZ
  2. How to get tenure (if you’re a woman). t.co/08HZiOlJmX
  3. In science, it’s never ‘just a theory’. 
  4. Who’s reading millions of stolen research papers on the outlaw site Sci-Hub?
  5. Climate scientists are now grading climate journalism. 
  6. Sensationalism or legitimate worries? The cottage industry of journal criticism and science alarmism. 
  7. You pay to read the research you fund. That’s ludicrous. t.co/J525NWwi83
  8. 1,800 studies later, scientists conclude that homeopathy doesn’t work. 
  9. Awesome online research tools for writers.
  10. Why women don’t leave comments online. 
  11. Scientific journals are retracting more papers than ever before. This is probably good for science. t.co/Gjd94oCAWC
  12. The end of research in Wisconsin.
  13. University admits chocolate milk doesn’t alleviate effects of concussions. 
  14. How newsroom pressure is letting fake stories onto the web. 
  15. Respect in science communication. 
  16. Best practices for building trust between scientists and communications staff. t.co/whUDkRfjOe
  17. How regular people can help shape science. 
  18. Here’s Richard Feynman’s simple technique for sorting science from pseudoscience. 
  19. How to report scientific findings. 
  20. Confronting the critics of public engagement. t.co/MKr4jeSG6x
  21. Big science is broken. 
  22. “Tenure can withstand Twitter”: Policies that promote science communication and protect those who engage.
  23. Comments on articles are valuable. So how to weed out the trolls?
  24. Elite scientists generally agree on what character traits make for excellent science.
  25. What happened when a group of scientists went to confront their congressional tormentors? t.co/noOcZ8nDn6
  26. Going Social: Science blogging, Twitter, and Facebook. t.co/kB3AV2t0R2
  27. The results are in – Who reads science blogs? 
  28. Wanted: Plain talk from the lab. t.co/90Bufz3kyw
  29. Tim Caulfield on a mission to debunk celebrity health advice. 
  30. Spoof papers and the ethics of academic publishing. 
  31. Does it take too long to publish research?

How Your Work Can Make The List:

Being considered for the SCICOMM 25 is simple. When you write something great, let me know by tweeting me a link. (@kirkenglehardt) I’ll check it out, and if I think it’s a good fit for the SCICOMM community, I’ll share it in a tweet. If it captures enough attention, as determined by the Twitter analytics on my account, it will make it into the next top 25. This isn’t a perfect system for identifying the ‘most talked about’ science communication stories, but it’s the best I can do with the limited time I have to pull this together. So tweet me!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s