Applied Filters
- Science Communication
Journal Title
Topics
- Integrative Sciences35
- Science and Society14
- Conservation and Sustainability5
- Biological and Life Sciences4
- Ecology and Evolution4
- Science and Policy4
- Earth and Environmental Sciences3
- Atmospheric and Climate Sciences2
- Public Health2
- Engineering, Technology, and Mathematics1
- Marine and Aquatic Sciences1
- Mathematics and Statistics1
Publication Date
Author
- Cooke, Steven J3
- Blais, Jules M2
- Chu, Samantha M2
- Cloutier, Anika2
- Côté, Isabelle M2
- Darling, Emily S2
- Moher, David2
- Robertson, Manjulika E2
- Sopinka, Natalie M2
- Straus, Sharon E2
- Tricco, Andrea C2
- Westwood, Alana R2
- Abou-Setta, Ahmed M1
- Arif, Suchinta1
- Attinello, Kayla1
- Axelson, Jodi1
- Bennett, J R1
- Bennett, Joseph R1
- Bergman, Jordanna N1
- Bergshoeff, Jonathan A1
- Boon, Sarah1
- Booth, Annie1
- Bornstein, Stephen1
- Bourbonnais, Mathieu1
- Brisbois, Marie Claire1
Access Type
21 - 35of35
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
| Search Name | Searched On |
|---|---|
| Subject Areas: Science Communication (35) | 21 Nov 2024 |
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESSScientists, like all humans, are subject to self-deceptive valuations of their importance and profile. Vainglorious practice is annoying but mostly harmless when restricted to an individual’s perception of self-worth. Language that can be associated with self-promotion and aggrandizement is destructive when incorporated into scientific writing. So too is any practice that oversells the novelty of research or fails to provide sufficient scholarship on the uniqueness of results. We evaluated whether such tendencies have been increasing over time by assessing the frequencies of articles claiming to be “the first”, and those that placed the requirement for scholarship on readers by using phrases such as “to the best of our knowledge”. Our survey of titles and abstracts of 176 journals in ecology and environmental biology revealed that the frequencies of both practices increased linearly over the past half century. We thus warn readers, journal editors, and granting agencies to use caution when assessing the claimed novelty of research contributions. A system-wide reform toward more cooperative science that values humility, and abhors hubris, might help to rectify the problem.
- OPEN ACCESS
- S.J. Cooke,
- N. Young,
- M.R. Donaldson,
- E.A. Nyboer,
- D.G. Roche,
- C.L. Madliger,
- R.J. Lennox,
- J.M. Chapman,
- Z. Faulkes, and
- J.R. Bennett
For better or for worse, authorship is a currency in scholarly research and advancement. In scholarly writing, authorship is widely acknowledged as a means of conferring credit but is also tied to concepts such as responsibility and accountability. Authorship is one of the most divisive topics both at the level of the research team and more broadly in the academy and beyond. At present, authorship is often the primary way to assert and receive credit in many scholarly pursuits and domains. Debates rage, publicly but mostly privately, regarding authorship. Here we attempt to clarify key concepts related to authorship informed by our collective experiences and anchored in relevant contemporary literature. Rather than dwelling on the problems, we focus on proactive strategies for creating more just, equitable, and transparent avenues for minimizing conflict around authorship and where there is adequate recognition of the entire process of knowledge generation, synthesis, sharing, and application with partners within and beyond the academy. We frame our ideas around 10 strategies that collectively constitute a roadmap for avoiding and overcoming challenges associated with authorship decisions. - OPEN ACCESS
- Jordanna N. Bergman,
- Rachel T. Buxton,
- Hsien-Yung Lin,
- Magdalena Lenda,
- Kayla Attinello,
- Adrianne C. Hajdasz,
- Stephanie A. Rivest,
- Thuong Tran Nguyen,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Joseph R. Bennett
Given its extensive volume and reach, social media has the potential to widely spread conservation messaging and be a powerful tool to mobilize social change for conserving biodiversity. We synthesized gray and primary academic literature to investigate the effects of social media on wildlife conservation, revealing several overarching benefits and risks. We found that social media can increase pro-conservation behaviours among the public, increase conservation funding, and incite policy changes. Conversely, social media can contribute to species exploitation and illegal trade, cause unprecedented increases in tourism in protected areas, and perpetuate anti-conservation behaviours via misinformation. In most cases, we found that content sharing on social media did not result in a detectable impact on conservation; in this paper, however, we focus on providing examples where conservation impact was achieved. We relate these positive and negative outcomes of social media to psychological phenomena that may influence conservation efforts and discuss limitations of our findings. We conclude with recommendations of best practices to social media administrators, public social media users, nongovernmental organizations, and governing agencies to minimize conservation risks while maximizing beneficial outcomes. By improving messaging, policing online misconduct, and providing guidance for action, social media can help achieve wildlife conservation goals. - OPEN ACCESS
- Andrea C. Tricco,
- Wasifa Zarin,
- Fiona Clement,
- Ahmed M. Abou-Setta,
- Janet A. Curran,
- Annie LeBlanc,
- Linda C Li,
- Christina Godfrey,
- Pertice Moffitt,
- David Moher,
- Heather Colquhoun,
- Ian D. Graham,
- Ivan D. Florez,
- Linda Wilhelm,
- Wanrudee Isaranuwatchaia,
- Jackie Mann,
- Marina Hamilton,
- Vasanthi Srinivasan,
- Stephen Bornstein, and
- Sharon E. Straus
This is the introductory paper in a collection of four papers on the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Evidence Alliance, a pan-Canadian research initiative that was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in September of 2017. Here, we introduce the SPOR enterprise in Canada, provide a rationale for the creation of the SPOR Evidence Alliance, provide information on the mandate and approach, and describe how the SPOR Evidence Alliance adds to the health research ecosystem in Canada and beyond. - OPEN ACCESS
- Sharon E. Straus,
- Brian Hutton,
- David Moher,
- Shannon E. Kelly,
- George A. Wells, and
- Andrea C. Tricco
In 2009, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Health Canada, and other stakeholders established the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (DSEN) to address the paucity of information on drug safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. This unique network invited knowledge users (e.g., policy makers) to submit queries to be answered by relevant research teams. The research teams were launched via open calls for team grants focused in relevant methodologic areas. We describe the development and implementation of one of these collaborating centres, the Methods and Application Group for Indirect Comparisons (MAGIC). MAGIC was created to provide high-quality knowledge synthesis including network meta-analysis to meet knowledge user needs. Since 2011, MAGIC responded to 54% of queries submitted to DSEN. In the past 5 years, MAGIC produced 26 reports and 49 publications. It led to 15 trainees who entered industry, academia, and government. More than 10 000 people participated in courses delivered by MAGIC team members. Most importantly, MAGIC knowledge syntheses influenced practice and policy (e.g., use of biosimilars for patients with diabetes and use of smallpox vaccinations in people with contraindications) provincially, nationally, and internationally. - OPEN ACCESS
- Shelby Fenton,
- Emma K Quinn,
- Ela Rydz,
- Emily Heer,
- Hugh W Davies,
- Robert A Macpherson,
- Christopher B McLeod,
- Mieke W Koehoorn, and
- Cheryl E Peters
A media surveillance analysis was conducted to identify COVID-19 workplace outbreaks and associated transmission risk for new and emerging occupations. We identified 1,111 unique COVID-19 workplace outbreaks using the Factiva database. Occupations identified in the media articles were coded to the 2016 National Occupational Classification (V1.3) and were compared and contrasted with the same occupation in the Vancouver School of Economics (VSE) COVID Risk/Reward Assessment Tool by risk rating. After nurse aides, orderlies, and patient service associates (n = 109, very high risk), industrial butchers and meat cutters, and poultry preparers and related workers had the most workplace outbreaks reported in the media (n = 79) but were rated as medium risk for COVID-19 transmission in the VSE COVID Risk Tool. Outbreaks were also reported among material handlers (n = 61) and general farm workers (n = 28), but these occupations were rated medium–low risk and low risk, respectively. Food and beverage services (n = 72) and cashiers (n = 60) were identified as high-risk occupations in the VSE COVID Risk Tool. Differences between the media results and the risk tool point to key determinants of health that compound the risk of COVID-19 exposure in the workplace for some occupations and highlight the importance of collecting occupation data during a pandemic. - OPEN ACCESSThe drivers of the harassment and intimidation of researchers are complex, widespread, and global in their reach and were being studied across many disciplines even before COVID-19. This policy briefing reviews some of the scholarship on this wide-ranging problem but focuses on what can be done to help ensure that Canadians fully benefit from the work of Canada’s researchers while also preserving the security and safety of those researchers. It identifies policies and actions that can be implemented in the near term to gather information on the problem, better frame public research communications, and ensure that mechanisms are readily available to support researchers who are threatened. The policy briefing is concerned with researchers, but these behaviours are also harming journalists, politicians, public health communicators, and many others more fully in the public eye than researchers. Some recommendations here may help to address this wider problem.
- OPEN ACCESSTitles of scientific papers play a key role in their discovery, and “good” titles engage and recruit readers. Humour is a particularly interesting aspect of title construction, but little is known about whether funny titles boost or limit paper impact. We used a panel of scorers to assess title humour for 2439 papers in ecology and evolution, and measured associations between humour and subsequent citation (self-citation and citation by others). Papers with funnier titles were cited less, but this appears to reflect confounding with paper importance: self-citation data suggest that authors give funnier titles to papers they consider less important. After correction for this, papers with funny titles have significantly higher citation rates (P < 2.2 × 10−16; roughly doubling from lowest to highest humour score)—suggesting that humour recruits readers. We also examined associations between citation rates and other features of titles. Inclusion of acronyms and taxonomic names was associated with lower citation rates, while assertive-statement phrasing and presence of colons, question marks, and political regions were associated with somewhat higher citation rates. Title length had no effect on citation. Our results suggest that scientists can use creativity with titles without having their work condemned to obscurity.
- OPEN ACCESSAn exponentially growing body of international research engages with plastic pollution using different ideas on the right ways to frame, research, and intervene in the problem. The premise of this study is that all scientists work with understandings of what is right and wrong and why that is (models of justice) in their research, even when it is not explicitly stated, reflected upon, or a conscious part of the discussion. We surveyed 755 published articles on marine debris and plastic chemical additives and found that all evoked at least one model of justice, and often more. The most routinely used models included: developmental justice, distributive justice, and procedural justice. More rarely, we found appeals to environment-first justice and Indigenous sovereignty. While occasionally these multiple models worked synergistically, more often they conflicted. Our findings ground a call for fellow researchers to use a more intentional and systematic approach to evoking models of justice in our work. Our goal is to offer descriptions and insights about models of justice that are already being deployed to increase the sophistication of the ethical and normative orientations of our research and our fields, both in plastic pollution sciences and beyond.
- OPEN ACCESSIn 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted all aspects of human activity, including environmental research and monitoring. Despite a lack of laboratory access and other restrictive measures, we adapted an existing community science monitoring program to continue through the summer of 2020. We worked with local community groups to recruit 58 volunteers who collected lake water samples from 60 sites on 16 lakes in south-central Ontario from June to September 2020. We organized drop-off depots and had volunteers freeze samples to monitor nearshore nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) and chlorophyll-a. A survey was distributed to volunteers to analyze lake-front property owners’ activities during the pandemic. We found spatial patterns in nearshore water quality across the lakes, with sub-watershed development being a significant predictor of nutrients and chlorophyll-a. Additionally, pre-pandemic (2019) and pandemic (2020 and 2021) nutrient concentrations were compared, but there was no clear impact of the pandemic on nearshore nutrient concentrations, despite changes in lake-front property owners activities. Overall, this study demonstrated the ability of community science to provide water quality data on a large spatial scale despite a major societal disruption, providing insight into regional nutrient trends during the first year of the pandemic.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Manjulika E. Robertson,
- Samantha M. Chu,
- Anika Cloutier,
- Philippe Mongeon,
- Don A. Driscoll,
- Tej Heer, and
- Alana R. Westwood
When researchers are sufficiently resourced to conduct research and communicate their findings, the knowledge produced can benefit the environment and society through policy. However, interference with the research process and its subsequent knowledge mobilization (“interference in science”) has been observed in several countries, particularly for environmental researchers. Using a mixed-methods approach, we surveyed environmental researchers in Canada (n = 741) to investigate the perceived prevalence, source, and effects of interference and considered whether these perceptions differ by region, career stage, research area, and membership in any scientific society. Although over half of researchers were not restricted from speaking to the media (54%), and most had never been asked to make “undue modifications” to their work (84%), the vast majority (92%) reported at least some degree of interference in their work during their careers. Consequences of interference were more prevalent among early-career researchers and included negative impacts on job satisfaction, mental health, and undue modification to work leading to inaccurate or incomplete science communication. Although environmental researchers in Canada deem themselves overall better able to conduct and communicate their work than under previous federal governments, reports of ongoing political interference remain concerning. We recommend increased support for researchers and further investigations into interference. - OPEN ACCESSResearchers in the environmental studies and sciences play a critical role in influencing real-world decision-making and policies. However, interference during research and sharing of results has been documented in Canada and around the world. Further, research has shown that workers from marginalized social identitie(s) experience discrimination in the workplace. Whether interference in research is related to social identity has never been examined. Using a mixed-methods design, we surveyed 741 environmental researchers in Canada to understand the relationship between social identity (gender, disability status, 2SLGBTQI+ status, race, and perception of racial identity) and reported experiences of interference. Results found that researchers with marginalized identities experienced worse outcomes across 11 of the 25 quantitative measures. For example, most marginalized groups experienced significantly greater fear of misrepresentation by media and (or) fear of negative career consequences due to public commentary, and racialized and disabled persons reported greater external interference in their work (e.g., from management and workplace policy). Given these findings, we express concern that the experience of interference in research can (1) threaten the personal well-being of marginalized researchers, (2) limit the representativeness of information disseminated, thererby impacting environmental decision-making and policy, and (3) contribute to inequities in representativeness of marginalized researchers in environmental sciences in Canada.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Kira M. Hoffman,
- Kelsey Copes-Gerbitz,
- Sarah Dickson-Hoyle,
- Mathieu Bourbonnais,
- Jodi Axelson,
- Amy Cardinal Christianson,
- Lori D. Daniels,
- Robert W. Gray,
- Peter Holub,
- Nicholas Mauro,
- Dinyar Minocher, and
- Dave Pascal
Western Canada is increasingly experiencing impactful and complex wildfire seasons. In response, there are urgent calls to implement prescribed and cultural fire as a key solution to this complex challenge. Unfortunately, there has been limited investment in individuals and organizations that can navigate this complexity and work to implement collaborative solutions across physical, cognitive, and social boundaries. In the wildfire context, these boundaries manifest as jurisdictional silos, a lack of respect for certain forms of knowledge, and a disconnect between knowledge and practice. Here, we highlight the important role of “boundary spanners” in building trust, relationships, and capacity to enable collaboration, including through five case studies from western Canada. As individuals and organizations who actively work across and bridge boundaries between diverse actors and knowledge systems, we believe that boundary spanners can play a key role in supporting proactive wildfire management. Boundary spanning activities include: convening workshops, hosting joint training exercises, supporting knowledge exchange and communities of practice, and creating communication tools and resources. These activities can help overcome unevenly valued knowledge, lack of trust, and outdated policies. We need collaborative approaches to implement prescribed and cultural fire, including a strong foundation for the establishment of boundary spanning individuals and organizations. - OPEN ACCESS
- OPEN ACCESS
- Mark K. Taylor,
- Helen Irwin,
- Gregg T. Tomy,
- Fonya Irvine,
- Margaret Yole,
- Simon Despatie, and
- Karsten Liber
It can be challenging for practitioners to determine reasonable response actions following an environmental spill because there are risks associated with the recovery process, acute constraints on time, and few case studies available from antecedent events. Here, we evaluate environmental risk using a screening level assessment (SLA) and describe risk management actions during the response phase of a train derailment that released 600 tonnes of fly ash into a headwater creek in Banff National Park, Canada. Trace metal concentrations and physico-chemical parameters from downstream of the derailment site were compared to Canadian environmental quality guidelines and upstream reference values. There was a 1–2.2-fold exceedance of sediment quality guidelines (As, Cd, and Se) as well as a 3.6–17.5-fold exceedance of water quality guidelines (Al, Cd, Fe, and turbidity) downstream of the train derailment. Despite uncertainty about site-specific toxicity when using a SLA, we did require the removal of the settled fly ash from the creek based on the multiple exceedances of guidelines, regulatory context, wilderness setting, and potential contribution to cumulative effects downstream. Case studies that evaluate risk and describe risk management actions help practitioners make consistent and efficient decisions during the response phase of a spill.