segmenting in science

[Glenn Hampson]

Thanks Anthony,

This is certainly an interesting topic. I think we covered it on this list before---aren’t some journals already adding a “plain English” summary alongside the abstract?

Here are a few other articles that may help add some more context to this idea:

• Services like Kudos (growkudos.com) help authors market their papers more effectively. Using Kudos, authors can explain in plain language what their publication is about and why it’s important, add links, share, etc.
• Altmetric.com measures reach (including attention, dissemination and impact) across a wide range of platforms, from citations to social media.
• There is a downside to agitating for more “publicity” in science (here’s Kent Anderson’s “publicize or perish” piece from 2014): https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/12/15/exaggerated-claims-has-publish-or-perish-become-publicize-or-perish/
• Read the real life story of EHS (Environmental Health Sciences) with regard to the need for and reaction to “plain English” approaches: “For some scientists, it’s anathema to them that you might try to simplify something using an analogy or describe something in a way that doesn’t fully embrace the complexities of the science…. Yet when we’re communicating to the public, we have to simplify things. It’s an art as much as it is a science.” http://www.c-ville.com/changing-the-science-climate-how-one-charlottesville-foundation-has-altered-the-conversation-about-research/#.WtN55kxFxPb
• I wrote a few years ago about how there’s a natural market logic to “segmenting”---to targeting specific audiences with specific language. “…Society is on the same path as science, producing more specialized, targeted, narrowly focused information for specific groups, tailored just the way they like it. Society isn’t getting off this path any time soon—science may not either.” http://nationalscience.org/nsci-focus-areas/science-writing/2013/the-journal-of-monosyllabic-science/

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

From: 'Anthony Watkinson' via The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 8:36 AM
To: osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491364/

 

I have just come across a small article about outreach which I read some time ago and filed. I hope it may be of interest to those concerned with outreach to the public and others. RE: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491364/

 

Anthony

 

Anthony Watkinson

Principal Consultant CIBER Research

Honorary Lecturer University College London

Director Charleston Library Conference

 

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[David Wojick]

Science education and literacy levels vary so widely that there really is nothing that qualifies as plain English. For example, I have done graduate level study in physics but my last biology course was in 10th grade high school. Others may be the opposite, while many have had no college level science of any kind.

Even in high school the usual requirement is to take just 2 of the 4 basic courses -- physics, chemistry, biology and earth sciences. So for many people the last study of two of these topics will have been in middle school.

The differences from person to person are enormous. It is a very interesting problem.

David
http://insidepublicaccess.com/

At 12:34 PM 4/15/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:

Thanks Anthony,
This is certainly an interesting topic. I think we covered it on this list before---aren’t some journals already adding a “plain English†summary alongside the abstract?

Here are a few other articles that may help add some more context to this idea:

• Services like Kudos (growkudos.com) help authors market their papers more effectively. Using Kudos, authors can explain in plain language what their publication is about and why it’s important, add links, share, etc.

• Altmetric.com measures reach (including attention, dissemination and impact) across a wide range of platforms, from citations to social media.

• There is a downside to agitating for more “publicity†in science (here’s Kent Anderson’s “publicize or perish†piece from 2014): https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/12/15/exaggerated-claims-has-publish-or-perish-become-publicize-or-perish/
• Read the real life story of EHS (Environmental Health Sciences) with regard to the need for and reaction to “plain English†approaches: “For some scientists, it’s anathema to them that you might try to simplify something using an analogy or describe something in a way that doesn’t fully embrace the complexities of the science…. Yet when we’re communicating to the public,, we have to simplify things. It’s an art as much as it is a science.†http://www.c-ville.com/changing-the-science-climate-how-one-charlottesville-foundation-has-altered-the-conversation-about-research/#.WtN55kxFxPb
• I wrote a few years ago about how there’s a natural market logic to “segmenting†---to targeting specific audiences with specific language. “…Society is on the same path as science, producing more specializedd, targeted, narrowly focused information for specific groups, tailored just the way they like it. Society isn’t getting off this path any time soon—science may not either.†http://nationalscience.org/nsci-focus-areas/science-writing/2013/the-journal-of-monosyllabic-science/

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi David,

 

I was lazy with my English here, ironically. The point of segmenting is to understand and write for your audience. Skiing enthusiasts have a different vocabulary than track & field enthusiasts, physicists use different terms than biologists, farm communities and urban communities have different concerns, etc. (it’s way more segmented than this, of course). For the purpose of writing science summaries in plain English, we rely on broad segments that work better than none at all--- Flesch Kinkaid reading levels, for instance, are often a rough proxy for what’s “plain” and what isn’t. Consent forms for NIH-funded research studies are generally written to an 8^th grade level, which doesn’t mean difficult concepts must be avoided (to the contrary, the subject matter of consents can be very complicated)---just that the vocabulary and writing needs to assume the reader hasn’t had any high school science yet.

 

So, yes---you’re correct that nothing qualifies as plain English for everyone---but there are approaches available that help get us at least part way toward this goal.

[David Wojick]

Flesh scores are just based on syllable counts and sentence length so not really relevant. 8th grade is in fact the last where most people learn the same stuff but it is way too elementary for journal or Kudo's nontechnical summaries.

It is actually a very interesting document design challenge, that is largely unaddressed. My teams work on grade level stratification for the Energy Dept's Office of Science could be helpful, but the project we did it for -- ScienceEducation.gov -- died. Using our algorithm one could specify precisely the allowable technical vocabulary.

See http://www.stemed.info/

David

On Apr 15, 2018, at 5:07 PM, "Glenn Hampson" <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

Hi David,

 

I was lazy with my English here, ironically. The point of segmenting is to understand and write for your audience. Skiing enthusiasts have a different vocabulary than track & field enthusiasts, physicists use different terms than biologists, farm communities and urban communities have different concerns, etc. (it’s way more segmented than this, of course). For the purpose of writing science summaries in plain English, we rely on broad segments that work better than none at all--- Flesch Kinkaid reading levels, for instance, are often a rough proxy for what’s “plain” and what isn’t. Consent forms for NIH-funded research studies are generally written to an 8^th grade level, which doesn’t mean difficult concepts must be avoided (to the contrary, the subject matter of consents can be very complicated)---just that the vocabulary and writing needs to assume the reader hasn’t had any high school science yet.

 

So, yes---you’re correct that nothing qualifies as plain English for everyone---but there are approaches available that help get us at least part way toward this goal.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

<image001.jpg>

<image001.jpg>

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi David,

 

Here’s a document (one of many) that provides some more background on improving the readability of complex health-care related docs: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049622/. It’s actually a bit of a cottage industry---not at all unaddressed---both in health care and science communication generally. As I said, the readability score is a proxy for intelligibility---it doesn’t substitute for a well-written piece, but it’s generally (with regard to consent forms) one of the factors looked at by IRBs. I’m happy to provide more details off-list.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

[David Wojick]

Thanks Glenn. I have been active in the plain language movement for about 40 years, mostly in the areas of (1) federal regulation and (2) consumer lending (see http://www.stemed.info/Repo_Tree.pdf). I almost got to write an Executive Order mandating it for regulations, but OMB balked at mandating a Flesch score because it required using commercial products at the (pre-Web) time.

Given that knowledge diffusion is one of the top goals of open science I think intelligibility, not just readability, deserves a lot more attention. That this is just a cottage industry (including my cottage) is indicative of the problem. Keep in mind that, for most journal articles, perhaps 99% of all scientists are novices. Journal articles are not written to communicate with the scientific community, just with the few experts.

David
http://www.stemed.info/

At 12:31 AM 4/16/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:

Hi David,
 
Here's a document (one of many) that provides some more background on improving the readability of complex health-care related docs: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049622/. It's actually a bit of a cottage industry---not at all unaddressed---both in health care and science communication generally. As I said, the readability score is a proxy for intelligibility---it doesn't substitute for a well-written piece, but it's generally (with regard to consent forms) one of the factors looked at by IRBs. I'm happy to provide more details off-list.
 
Best,
 
Glenn
 
 
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
 
 
 
From: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 2:45 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: segmenting in science
 
Flesh scores are just based on syllable counts and sentence length so not really relevant. 8th grade is in fact the last where most people learn the same stuff but it is way too elementary for journal or Kudo's nontechnical summaries.
 
It is actually a very interesting document design challenge, that is largely unaddressed. My teams work on grade level stratification for the Energy Dept's Office of Science could be helpful, but the project we did it for -- ScienceEducation.gov -- died. Using our algorithm one could specify precisely the allowable technical vocabulary.
 
See http://www.stemed.info/
 
David
 
 

On Apr 15, 2018, at 5:07 PM, "Glenn Hampson" < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

Hi David,

 

I was lazy with my English here, ironically. The point of segmenting is to understand and write for your audience. Skiing enthusiasts have a different vocabulary than track & field enthusiasts, physicists use different terms than biologists, farm communities and urban communities have different concerns, etc. (it’s way more segmented than this, of course). For the purpose of writing science summaries in plain English, we rely on broad segments that work better than none at all--- Flesch Kinkaid reading levels, for instance, are often a rough proxy for what’s “plain†and what isn’t. Consent forms for NIH-funded research studies are generally written to an 8th grade level, which doesn’t mean difficult concepts must be avoided (to the contrary, the subject matter of consents can be very complicated)---just that the vocabulary and writing needs to assume the reader hasn’t had any high school science yet.

 

So, yes---you’re correct that nothing qualifies as plain English for everyone---but there are approaches available that help get us at least part way toward this goal.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson

Executive Director

Science Communication Institute (SCI)

Program Director

Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

<image001.jpg>

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133

(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

 

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of David Wojick

Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 11:40 AM

To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' < osi20...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: segmenting in science

Science education and literacy levels vary so widely that there really is nothing that qualifies as plain English. For example, I have done graduate level study in physics but my last biology course was in 10th grade high school. Others may be the opposite, while many have had no college level science of any kind.

Even in high school the usual requirement is to take just 2 of the 4 basic courses -- physics, chemistry, biology and earth sciences. So for many people the last study of two of these topics will have been in middle school.

The differences from person to person are enormous. It is a very interesting problem.

David

http://insidepublicaccess.com/

At 12:34 PM 4/15/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:

Thanks Anthony,

This is certainly an interesting topic. I think we covered it on this list before---aren’t some journals already addinging a “plain English†summary alongside the the abstract?

Here are a few other articles that may help add some more context to this idea:

Services like Kudos (growkudos.com) help authors market their papers more effectively. Using Kudos, authors can explain in plain language what their publication is about and why it̢۪s importortant, add links, share, etc.

Altmetric.com measures reach (including attention, dissemination and impact) across a wide range of platforms, from citations to social media.

There is a downside to agitating for more “publicicity†in science (here’s Kent Andersonerson’s “publicize or perishââish†piece from 2014): https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/12/15/exaggerated-claims-has-publish-or-perish-become-publicize-or-perish/

Read the real life story of EHS (Environmental Health Sciences) with regard to the need for and reaction to â€ÅÅ“plain English†approaches: “For some sme scientists, it’s anathema to them that you might try ry to simplify something using an analogy or describe something in a way that doesn’t fully embrace the complexities of the sciencence…. Yet when we’re communicating to the publ public,, we have to simplify things. It’s an art as muchuch as it is a science.†http://www.c-ville.com/changing-the-science-climate-how-one-charlottesville-foundation-has-altered-the-conversation-about-research/#.WtN55kxFxPb

I wrote a few years ago about how thereâ€â„„¢s a natural market logic to “segmentingââ‚€ ---to targeting specific audiences with specific language. “…Society is on the same path as science, producing more spspecializedd, targeted, narrowly focused information for specific groups, tailored just the way they like it. Society isn’t gettitting off this path any time soon—science may not either.â₂¬ http://nationalscience.org/nsci-focus-areas/science-writing/2013/the-journal-of-monosyllabic-science/

[Glenn Hampson]

Good point David,

 

We’ve tiptoed into this topic before but it’s a bit off-topic for our short-term goals. Certainly for the long-term, I agree that readability needs to receive much more attention. After all, what benefit is there for policymakers, interdisciplinary researchers and the general public if we make more journals open but most of the articles are still utterly unreadable? Or are we just concerned with whether these articles can be accessed and understood by their target audiences (e.g., by biologists speaking to biologists)? Without improving readability, we’re ignoring a huge opportunity, IMHO.

 

But one battle at a time. I suspect that more open will eventually put pressure on improving readability down the line---i.e., as more people try to access more materials, materials that are more readable and user friendly will start to gain an advantage in the marketplace (maybe not the way the current marketplace is structured, where we equate complex writing with authoritative writing, but in a future marketplace where we’re more willing to admit that complex writing is---well---often too complex for even our target audiences to understand).

[Glenn Hampson]

BTW, if any of you want to delve more into this topic, this 2015 Atlantic article is a fun read and a good jumping off point, with several links to other interesting articles and resources: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/complex-academic-writing/412255/

--

[David Wojick]

Unfortunately articles like this send the wrong message. The fundamental issue is not bad writing. Nor should journal articles be made understandable by nonexperts. Technical language exists simply because the scientists and engineers are talking about something that ordinary people do not talk about, so they must have specialized language to do this.

Absent this technical language they cannot properly report their findings. Thus readability is not the issue.

Below is a fragment from our project to map the technical language learned from kindergarten through undergraduate college. This is just a small bit of college biology language. At the research level the language is even more technical, with new concepts constantly appearing.

The challenge is to also properly explain these findings nontechnically, as far as this is possible. This is actually quite difficult. Efforts like Kudos have made a small start but much more needs to be done.

David

ACETYL COA
ACOELOMATE
ADENOSINE
ADENYLYL
ADRENOCORTICOTROPIC
AGNATHAN
ALDEHYDE
ALDOSTERONE
ALEURONE LAYER
ALLANTOIS
ALLELE FREQUENCY
ALLOMETRIC GROWTH
ALLOPATRIC SPECIATION
ALLOPOLYPLOID
ALLOSTERIC SITE
ALLOZYMES
AMOEBOID
AMPHIPATHIC MOLECULE
ANABOLISM
ANAGENESIS
ANEUPLOIDY
APHOTIC ZONE
APICAL DOMINANCE
APICAL MERISTEM
APOMORPHIC CHARACTER
APOPLAST
APOPTOSIS

At 02:44 PM 4/16/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:

BTW, if any of you want to delve more into this topic, this 2015 Atlantic article is a fun read and a good jumping off point, with several links to other interesting articles and resources: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/complex-academic-writing/412255/
 
 
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Glenn Hampson
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 10:27 AM
To: 'David Wojick' <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: segmenting in science
 
Good point David,
 

We’ve tiptoed into this topic before but it’s a bit off-topic for our short-term goals. Certainly for the long-term, I agree that readability needs to receive much more attention. After all, what benefit is there for policymakers, interdisciplinary researchers and the general public if we make more journals open but most of the articles are still utterly unreadable? Or are we just concerned with whether these articles can be accessed and understood by their target audiences (e.g., by biologists speaking to biologists)? Without improving readability, we’re ignoring a huge opportunity, IMHO.
 
But one battle at a time. I suspect that more open will eventually put pressure on improving readability down the line---i.e., as more people try to access more materials, materials that are more readable and user friendly will start to gain an advantage in the marketplace (maybe not the way the current marketplace is structured, where we equate complex writing with authoritative writing, but in a future marketplace where we’re more willing to admit that complex writing is---well---often too complex for even our target audiences to understand).

Hi David,

 

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson

Executive Director

Science Communication Institute (SCI)

Program Director

Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

 

From: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us >

To: Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org>

 

See http://www.stemed.info/

 

David

 

 

Hi David,

 

I was lazy with my English here, ironically. The point of segmenting is to understand and write for your audience. Skiing enthusiasts have a different vocabulary than track & field enthusiasts, physicists use different terms than biologists, farm communities and urban communities have different concerns, etc. (it’s way more segmentedted than this, of course). For the purpose of writing science summaries in plain English, we rely on broad segments that work better than none at all--- Flesch Kinkaid reading levels, for instance, are often a rough proxy for what’s “plain†and w‚¬ and what isn’t. Consent forms for NIH-funded research stustudies are generally written to an 8th grade level, which doesn’t mean difficult concepts must be avoided (to the contrary, thee subject matter of consents can be very complicated)---just that the vocabulary and writing needs to assume the reader hasn’t ht had any high school science yet.

 

So, yes---you̢۪re correct that nothing qg qualifies as plain English for everyone---but there are approaches available that help get us at least part way toward this goal.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson

Executive Director

Science Communication Institute (SCI)

Program Director

Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

<image001.jpg>

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133

(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

 

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of David Wojick

Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 11:40 AM

To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' < osi20...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: segmenting in science

Science education and literacy levels vary so widely that there really is nothing that qualifies as plain English. For example, I have done graduate level study in physics but my last biology course was in 10th grade high school. Others may be the opposite, while many have had no college level science of any kind.

Even in high school the usual requirement is to take just 2 of the 4 basic courses -- physics, chemistry, biology and earth sciences. So for many people the last study of two of these topics will have been in middle school.

The differences from person to person are enormous. It is a very interesting problem.

David

http://insidepublicaccess.com/

At 12:34 PM 4/15/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:

Thanks Anthony,

This is certainly an interesting topic. I think we covered it on this list before---aren’t some journalnals already addinging a “plain English⢀ summary alongside the the abstract?

Here are a few other articles that may help add some more context to this idea:

Services like Kudos (growkudos.com) help authors market their papers more effectively. Using Kudos, authors can explain in plain language what their publication is about and why it’s importortant, add links, share, etc.

Altmetric.com measures reach (including attention, dissemination and impact) across a wide range of platforms, from citations to social media.

There is a downside to agitating for more “publicicityÆin science (here’s Kent Andersndersonerson’s “publicizelicize or perishââish†piece fromm 2014): https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2014/12/15/exaggerated-claims-has-publish-or-perish-become-publicize-or-perish/

Read the real life story of EHS (Environmental Health Sciences) with regard to the need for and reaction to ‬Åœplain English†approaches: “For some sme scientists, itâ€â„‚¬â„¢s anathema to them that you might try ry to simplify something using an analogy or describe something in a way that doesnâ€ââ„¢t fully embrace the complexities of the sciencence…. Yet whenn we’re communicating to the publ public,, we he have to simplify things. It’s an art as muchuchuch as it is a science.†http://www.c-ville.com/changing-the-science-climate-how-one-charlottesville-foundation-has-altered-the-conversation-about-research/#.WtN55kxFxPb

I wrote a few years ago about how thereâ€Ã¢„„¢s a natural market logi logic to “segmentingâ₂€ ---to targeting specific audiences with specific language. “…Society is on the same pathpath as science, producing more spspecializedd, targeted, narrowly focused information for specific groups, tailored just the way they like it. Society isn’t gettitting off this path any time soonâon—science may not either.ââ‚‚¬ http://nationalscience.org/nsci-focus-areas/science-writing/2013/the-journal-of-monosyllabic-science/

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson

Executive Director

Science Communication Institute (SCI)

Program Director

Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

<image001.jpg>

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133

(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

From: 'Anthony Watkinson' via The Open Scholarship Initiative < osi20...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 8:36 AM

To: osi20...@googlegroups.com

Subject: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491364/

 

I have just come across a small article about outreach which I read some time ago and filed. I hope it may be of interest to those concerned with outreach to the public and others. RE: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491364/

 

Anthony

 

Anthony Watkinson

Principal Consultant CIBER Research

Honorary Lecturer University College London

Director Charleston Library Conference

 

-

[Glenn Hampson]

Well---again, this is a bit out of our collective wheelhouse here---but it is an important conversation to have down the road at some point. What we consider “the fundamental issue” here is really in the eye of the beholder---I’ll grant you that much. There are groups like Sackler’s Science of Science Communication working to better understand what goes into science communication and comprehension; groups like the National Association of Science Writers and numerous collegiate technical writing programs whose members and graduates have careers making mumbo jumbo understandable by nonexperts; organizations like the Alda Center who think the focal point here is teaching scientists to express themselves more clearly; and other organizations that are focusing on improving networking in science, improving science “marketing,” making science education materials more accessible (as in interactive, topical, relevant, etc.), improving the stage-by-stage transparency of science, and so much more. Like OSI itself, it’s this big soup of efforts that holds the potential to revolutionize the way future generations can experience science. But improving readability is most definitely a fundamental piece of this puzzle. Whether it is the fundamental piece depends on who you ask.

--

[Anthony Watkinson]

Hi David

 

I wonder if there are several points here. There are the peers or researchers in a different sub-discipline who have the knowledge to understand the research – they do benefit by a clarity in writing and particularly by much more detail in the methodology section. At least this is what by early career researchers seem to think. I was surprised how many of them were using supplementary materials to house more detailed methodology – which is what Science Magazine actually asks authors to do

There are research papers which are difficult for a clinical audience. I came across this publishing research journals for a dental society the great majority of whose members were practitioners but practitioners many of whom wanted to keep up to date. What they found useful was what we called a “clinical summary” – the author had to answer a few questions.

The point here is the summary enabled the clinicians to decide whether to work through the paper which took them time worth it if they were looking at a value of a new treatment.

Then there are the others. Now we know that authors can be asked to write a summary of their proposals/ results  in lay language because they have to do that for many funders. I have probably asked before – what happens to these documents? When I looked some years ago they were not visible on funder sights and funder spokespersons were curiously unwilling to discuss this.

 

Anthony

[David Wojick]

There are indeed several points, Anthony, many in fact, and we have touched on a number of them. The diffusion of scientific knowledge is a complex process, even within the scientific community. Much of this is driven by the great differences in what different people either know or need to know. 

Thus the goal of simply making journal articles public has always seemed like a very partial solution to me. Cognitive access is as important as physical access. Physical access is a necessary condition for greatly enhanced diffusion, but not a sufficient one.

For example, take your researchers seeking more information on methods. In federally funded research this information may well be found in final project reports, which are typically much more detailed than journal articles. This is why DOE OSTI publishes the final reports, as do several other agencies. But NSF and some others refuse to publish them. Here the open science policy goal is to have reports published.

I discuss this aspect of OA here: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2011/09/21/taxpayer-oa-is-already-here-in-principle-in-reports/.

In fact the Atlantic article touches on a number of different diffusion issues. What is needed is a more systematic issue analysis, followed by the articulation of goals.

David

<image001.jpg>

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
 
 

From: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us >
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 10:03 AM
To: Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: segmenting in science
 
Thanks Glenn. I have been active in the plain language movement for about 40 years, mostly in the areas of (1) federal regulation and (2) consumer lending (see http://www.stemed.info/Repo_Tree.pdf). I almost got to write an Executive Order mandating it for regulations, but OMB balked at mandating a Flesch score because it required using commercial products at the (pre-Web) time.

Given that knowledge diffusion is one of the top goals of open science I think intelligibility, not just readability, deserves a lot more attention. That this is just a cottage industry (including my cottage) is indicative of the problem. Keep in mind that, for most journal articles, perhaps 99% of all scientists are novices. Journal articles are not written to communicate with the scientific community, just with the few experts.

David
http://www.stemed.info/


At 12:31 AM 4/16/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:

Hi David,

 

Here's a document (one of many) that provides some more background on improving the readability of complex health-care related docs: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049622/. It's actually a bit of a cottage industry---not at all unaddressed---both in health care and science communication generally. As I said, the readability score is a proxy for intelligibility---it doesn't substitute for a well-written piece, but it's generally (with regard to consent forms) one of the factors looked at by IRBs. I'm happy to provide more details off-list.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson

Executive Director

Science Communication Institute (SCI)

Program Director

Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

<image002.jpg>

[David Wojick]

The general idea is something like cognitive access. The overall point is that physical access needs to be coupled with cognitive access if open science is to be truly beneficial. OSI can at least make this point without going into specifics. The specifics are indeed complex and manifold because that is the nature of the knowledge diffusion process. 

Not sure about our collective wheelhouse, since several of us have studied aspects of this, including Anthony and me. 

David

<image001.jpg>

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
 
 

From: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us >
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 10:03 AM
To: Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: segmenting in science
 
Thanks Glenn. I have been active in the plain language movement for about 40 years, mostly in the areas of (1) federal regulation and (2) consumer lending (see http://www.stemed.info/Repo_Tree.pdf). I almost got to write an Executive Order mandating it for regulations, but OMB balked at mandating a Flesch score because it required using commercial products at the (pre-Web) time.

Given that knowledge diffusion is one of the top goals of open science I think intelligibility, not just readability, deserves a lot more attention. That this is just a cottage industry (including my cottage) is indicative of the problem. Keep in mind that, for most journal articles, perhaps 99% of all scientists are novices. Journal articles are not written to communicate with the scientific community, just with the few experts.

David
http://www.stemed.info/


At 12:31 AM 4/16/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:

Hi David,

 

Here's a document (one of many) that provides some more background on improving the readability of complex health-care related docs: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3049622/. It's actually a bit of a cottage industry---not at all unaddressed---both in health care and science communication generally. As I said, the readability score is a proxy for intelligibility---it doesn't substitute for a well-written piece, but it's generally (with regard to consent forms) one of the factors looked at by IRBs. I'm happy to provide more details off-list.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson

Executive Director

Science Communication Institute (SCI)

Program Director

Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

<image002.jpg>