Filter by keyword: Scholarly communication

In this article, we aim to carry out a literature review of studies carried out in Latin America on misinformation and scientific dissemination, in particular academic articles on this theme. Our corpus consisted of 142 articles, identified in the databases Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions and Scielo. The results show that Brazil is the main stage of these analyses and appears in 65.5% of the corpus. It points to a concentration of research published from 2020, which correlate with the Covid-19 pandemic, being this the most studied theme (69.0%). The articles address digital social network studies (35.2%) and media studies (33.1%). We discuss the need to strengthen research among Latin American countries as a way to understand the specific nature of the circulation of scientific misinformation in the region and structure better ways to address it.

Los grupos de ciencia recreativa en México han construido, en las últimas décadas, un importante movimiento de impulso a la comunicación pública de la ciencia. Sus actividades involucran a los participantes, de forma física, intelectual y emocional, en la construcción de experiencias científicas significativas. La colaboración entre grupos mostró la necesidad de un marco conceptual común para esta comunidad emergente. Para construirlo se articularon elementos teóricos con la experiencia de los grupos de Recreación en Cadena, la Red Mexicana de Ciencia Recreativa. El presente artículo expone los conceptos fundamentales de esta especialidad, a la par de la forma en que se construyeron.

There are many different pathways into science communication practice and research. But rarely do these pathways require critical reflection on what it means to be a ‘responsible’ science communicator or researcher. The need for this kind of critical reflection is increasingly salient in a world marked by the wilful disregard of evidence in many high-profile contexts, including politics and, most recently, public health. Responsible science communicators and researchers are audience- and impact-focused, beginning their decision-making process by considering their audiences’ starting positions, needs and values. This article outlines some key considerations for developing socially responsibility for science communication as a field both in terms of practice and research.

Este artículo presenta los resultados de dos investigaciones sobre la comunicación y apropiación social de las ciencias en la Universidad Nacional de Entre Ríos (UNER, Argentina). Se exponen las prácticas ligadas a la problemática desde un modelo de análisis que articula: 1) la política institucional; 2) las percepciones y actitudes de sus agentes. Contemplando, las funciones de (a) Investigación y (b) Extensión. Las conclusiones permiten establecer el panorama de las prácticas de circulación de las ciencias en la UNER, generar recomendaciones para fortalecer las acciones en esa dirección y proponer un modelo para abordar el tema en otras universidades.

En el artículo se analizan las prácticas y discursos sobre comunicación de las ciencias de docentes-investigadores de una universidad pública argentina (UNER). Mediante un modelo teórico y metodológico elaborado a tal fin, el estudio abordó diversos tipos de acciones (difusión académica, propuestas de vinculación curricular, transferencia y otras) desarrolladas por los agentes. Los resultados muestran el impacto en los habitus profesionales y socio-organizativos de ciertos cambios en el modo de comprender los procesos de producción y circulación del conocimiento científico — y, en general, las relaciones entre ciencia y sociedad — que en la actualidad atraviesan las instituciones académicas.

In this editorial, we reflect on our new roles as Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editor of JCOM. We acknowledge the work of previous editors of JCOM, the Editorial Office and the wider JCOM community who have contributed to the success of the journal. We introduce the new Editorial Board and future directions for the journal, and we encourage suggestions from authors, reviewers and readers for taking the journal forward.

From ‘Feed the Birds’ to ‘Do Not Feed the Animals’ takes an engaged approach in which science communication is both process and outcome of the research. The project started in the UK in March 2020, coinciding with government-imposed lockdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; since the project’s engagement had been designed around in-person interactions, a rapid and creative rethink was needed. This paper outlines the redesign of the project and describes a hybrid model of on-line and in-person engagement, integrating new skills and technologies which the pandemic catalysed, with well-established in-person practice in science communication. Our research develops good practice for online, participatory science communication, and supports the advancement of engaged research more widely.

In this Editorial, I reflect on my time as Editor in Chief of JCOM and thank the community of scholars and practitioners who have helped to ensure the success of JCOM by generously contributing their time as reviewers, as well as authors and readers. This community has made my time as Editor in Chief rewarding and informative, as I have learned more and more about our diverse field. I am sure that JCOM will continue to grow and develop under the directorship of Michelle Riedlinger and Marina Joubert.

Diante da pandemia do coronavírus, atualmente, as vacinas estão inseridas nas discussões do cotidiano dos cidadãos. Para além das controvérsias desse tema, há uma mobilização de desinformações que coadunam fake news e pós-verdades. Nesse contexto, busca-se com este artigo investigar como a produção do conhecimento científico reconhece as controvérsias e as fake news sobre vacinas, por meio de uma revisão bibliográfica. Entre as pesquisas recentes, existem as que analisam fake news, bem como o ambiente em que circulam e, também, sua checagem, apontando, assim, novos cenários e contextos de investigações.

This paper is the culmination of several meaning-making activities between an external researcher, PES practitioners, and social scientist researchers who considered the unique contributions that can be made through RPPs on PES (that is, research-practice partnerships on public engagement with science). Based on the experiences from three RPP projects, the group noted that the PES context may be particularly suited to RPPs, and identified the importance of working as thinking-partners who support reciprocal decision-making. Recommendations are made in support of using these approaches to advance practical knowledge-building and reduce shared frustrations about the disconnect between research and practice in PES.