infographics redux

27 views
Skip to first unread message

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 21, 2021, 7:27:50 PM1/21/21
to osi20...@googlegroups.com

Hi Folks,

 

Last year we started toying around with making a few infographics in order to help explain big ideas in scholarly communication to lay audiences. Unfortunately, we didn’t get any of these out the door. I ran out of time, plus I think the editorial process ended up being too much for such a basic product---you must have seen 10 different versions of the first infographic last summer.

 

So, I’m going to try this again, but simplified. This time around, I’m just going to bother you for 1-2 rounds of edits/corrections on these (noting that the most important component here is the message, not the design, but if you want to make recommendations on the design, that’s fine too). The first infographic is attached; a second will be sent around in a few weeks. Let me know if you have any ideas about what other scholarly communication infographics the world needs. The ones currently on the drawing board are:

 

  • Peer review (collaborate with ORCID)
  • Who publishes research (by country of origin, discipline breakdown, breakdown by journals and publishers, growth over time)
  • Publication “status” (The scholarly article production/lifecycle and how to understand the "status" of info in a particular stage and what the vetting markers are of each)
  • The knowledge production process by field
  • Knowledge acceptance within science

 

Thanks much,

 

Glenn

 

 

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

 

 

image003.jpg
infographic-1.2h2.pdf

Alice Meadows

unread,
Jan 21, 2021, 7:38:01 PM1/21/21
to Glenn Hampson, osi20...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Glenn - good to hear that you’re reviving the scholarly comms infographics idea! 

In case it’s of interest we created this infographic for Peer Review Week 2020 -

It’s very straightforward as it was intended for the general public as well as for researchers/schol comms people but I think it gets the high-level message across quite well. It’s openly available under a CCBY license and it would be great to see it being used! 

Thanks, Alice

--


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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/00eb01d6f055%2463223180%2429669480%24%40nationalscience.org.


--
Alice Meadows
Director of Community Engagement, NISO

Bryan Alexander

unread,
Jan 21, 2021, 7:47:06 PM1/21/21
to Alice Meadows, Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
I love the idea and like the topics!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CAAqGVjADVgabev4WWkyNneZm8CW%3Di%3DM8Lxn4z3jjv5vqdWmFHA%40mail.gmail.com.


--

David Wojick

unread,
Jan 22, 2021, 4:38:45 PM1/22/21
to Glenn Hampson, osi20...@googlegroups.com
What is 
  • Knowledge acceptance within science
about?

I have stuff on emerging fields.

David

On Jan 21, 2021, at 8:27 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:



--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/00eb01d6f055%2463223180%2429669480%24%40nationalscience.org.
<infographic-1.2h2.pdf>

Rob Johnson

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 11:21:05 AM1/23/21
to The Open Scholarship Initiative
Great idea Glenn, infographics are increasingly valuable these days. I like the idea lifecycle, and you've done a good job in distilling something inherently complex down to a small number of steps and words. No easy task!

My only thought was that the graphic risks presenting research as a closed system, with ideas and facts going round in an endless loop that benefits no one except researchers themselves. Even open research is presented primarily as a means of confirming studies to make research itself stronger, rather offering any benefit to society at large.  It's discipline-dependent, of course, but if you can work in some acknowledgement that societal needs and user requirements may inform the think/design stages, and that sharing of research findings can (and should!) benefit audiences beyond the research community that would be a better reflection of reality. 

All the best,

Rob 

Rob Johnson 
Director
Research Consulting
@rschrobUK

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 12:11:54 PM1/23/21
to David Wojick, osi20...@googlegroups.com

What do you want it to be about? 😊 It’s been a while since I’ve looked at this so I’m not positive what the group had in mind at the time. I *think* it sprang from the idea that we should show how we science unearths truths but at the same time these truths are continually questioned and refined. The issue, I think, is to help explain why we are confident the world is round (sort of), that vaccines work, and that dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago and not 6,000 years ago. “Science” as a process isn’t widely understood; it has also been misappropriated over time by, well, just about everyone. So, many people today end up wondering why we should trust the same people who brought us The Science Diet to tell us why we should take the Coronavirus vaccine (answer: It’s not the same people, or the same process). Make sense?

 

Best,

 

Glenn

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 12:59:19 PM1/23/21
to Rob Johnson, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Thanks Rob---really great ideas. I’ll see if these can be added to the current infographic (maybe just in words?) without confusing it too much. Otherwise, these would fit nicely into a new, separate infographic that explains where research comes from and how it helps society---again, not a really well-understood concept at the lay level.

 

Cheers,

 

Glenn

 

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Rob Johnson
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 8:21 AM
To: The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: infographics redux

 

Great idea Glenn, infographics are increasingly valuable these days. I like the idea lifecycle, and you've done a good job in distilling something inherently complex down to a small number of steps and words. No easy task!

Jo De

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 1:23:59 PM1/23/21
to Glenn Hampson, Rob Johnson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
These are both beautiful graphics and I would love to see them posted where individuals (researchers, students, pi’s and more) would be invited to post their comments.

Margaret Winker Cook

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 1:36:25 PM1/23/21
to Jo De, Glenn Hampson, Rob Johnson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Glenn and all, I agree with the comments, but could we consider future infographics oriented for the less educated public? It's been suggested to me by friends active in the community that some basic information, beginning with what is science and what is scientific research, is very much needed (in at least English and Spanish, and hopefully more languages). It's unfortunate this is necessary, but as we’ve discussed we live in an anti-science environment in the US, where many people went to schools that taught that evolution is not an established fact, if they had “science” education at all. Many people appear to be anti-covid vaccine for reasons that have more to do with ignorance and mistrust than being hardcore antivaxxers. (For example, I’ve heard people say they were reluctant because "no one has gotten the vaccine yet" and want to wait for others -- despite the nearly 22,000 individuals who received the Pfizer vaccine and more than 15,000 who received the Moderna vaccine in the trials.)

These could be simple one page summaries with infographics, as you've worked on for peer review. (JAMA developed a one-page patient page that is a similar idea, but this would be more general science topics). Some possible topics include 
-What is science? 
-What is scientific research? (including how research seeks to differentiate cause and effect from chance, what is a randomized trial, what is a volunteer, what is informed consent)
-How is scientific research evaluated?  (scientific meetings, peer review, evaluation of conflicts of interest, publication, post publication peer review)
-What research is conducted on vaccines before approval? What are the safeguards for the public?
-Additional one pagers could be developed to boil down available research into accessible bites, eg, for the Pfizer and Moderna studies. Is this something OSI would consider? 
Best wishes,
Maggie

Margaret Winker, MD

Trustee, WAME

***

wame.org

wame.blog

@WAMedEditors

www.facebook.com/WAMEmembers



On Jan 23, 2021, at 12:23 PM, Jo De <dnn...@gmail.com> wrote:



Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 1:51:41 PM1/23/21
to Margaret Winker Cook, Jo De, Rob Johnson, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Love it. Hey---if you or any OSIers want to sketch these out, please go for it. Send me text and I’ll pretty it up into an infographic and send the first draft back around for review/revision. All your ideas are great. And to the extent we can revise/repackage/link to existing CC-BY materials from reputable sources (so we aren’t totally reinventing the wheel at every turn), that’s also good.

 

I think we’ll need to start with English versions first and then maybe UNESCO or some other partner here (like CACTUS) might be willing/able to provide professional Spanish and French translations. Re-typesetting (and re-proofing) translations is a bear but it’s important work---happy to do it.

 

Thanks Maggie,

 

Glenn

Anthony Watkinson

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 1:56:57 PM1/23/21
to Jo De, Margaret Winker Cook, Glenn Hampson, Rob Johnson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Hi Margaret


I think this is a different role involved. In the UK this is filled (to some extent by this organisation Sense about Science: https://senseaboutscience.org).


Is not OSI concerned with bringing about open scholarship by influencing the immediate stakeholders involved in scholarly communication and in particularly the researchers? I am about to embark on another stint of interviewing early career researchers mainly scientists (see www.ciber-research.com/harbingers-2) and already find that whereas there is some understanding or at least recognition of open outputs there is very little understanding or recognition of open processes to my mind perhaps more important for reproducibility or replication.


I also see OSI as an organisation seeking international influence. USA is no longer even the country producing the majority of research though still a leader in thinking. Infographics are great for this purpose.


Anthony



------ Original Message ------
From: "Margaret Winker Cook" <margare...@gmail.com>
To: "Jo De" <dnn...@gmail.com>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">osi2016-25+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

--
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 unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">osi2016-25+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

--
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 unsub...@googlegroups.com">osi2016-25+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

--
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 unsub...@googlegroups.com">osi2016-25+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/58D0D104-83D8-49BD-B8BC-FA776BEEA95F%40gmail.com.

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 2:36:30 PM1/23/21
to anthony....@btinternet.com, Jo De, Margaret Winker Cook, Rob Johnson, The Open Scholarship Initiative

I love Sense about Science Anthony---thanks for highlighting their great work. In the world of science communication, there are also groups like COMPASS who wield good influence; and not to toot our own horn here, but SCI has also paneled and keynoted a number of important scicomm conversations over the years. There is just, alas, such a paucity of funding and effort in this space. Te more voices we can have helping out here the better.

 

As far as the layman orientation is concerned, we can always do both, of course. Our policy papers are firmly planted in wonk-ville; our issue briefs are written for people in the field who need to learn more; and our infographics can be primers for the public. Surprisingly (maybe?), I find that a lot of people in the policy debate are not at all conversant at the level you might think/hope they should be. Providing a very basic and approachable introduction to science communication and open issues will be of value to a lot of policy makers in this space.

 

We should probably even talk about sharing the key points from your Harbingers work as an infographic---this is highly relevant, cutting edge stuff.

 

Cheers,

 

Glenn

David Wojick

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 3:01:30 PM1/23/21
to Margaret Winker Cook, Jo De, Glenn Hampson, Rob Johnson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Anyone graduating from US public school has had a lot of science, including a lot on the nature of science. You can look at the state K-12 standards to see what is taught in each grade. In the new Next Generation Science Standards there is even more emphasis on the nature of science, too much in my view because there is then less on the nature of the world around us. I suspect there is relatively little on the nature of research, but have not looked at that. Might be fun.

Lack of understanding of how science is supposed to work is not the problem. The problem is the widespread belief that it is not working as it should. Addressing that with an infographic might be difficult.

David

On Jan 23, 2021, at 2:36 PM, Margaret Winker Cook <margare...@gmail.com> wrote:



Margaret Winker Cook

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 3:31:40 PM1/23/21
to David Wojick, Jo De, Glenn Hampson, Rob Johnson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
David,
Maybe in your region lots of science was taught, but across the US (for example—this isn’t just about the US), curriculum is state by state — take evolution, for example https://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/fighting-over-darwin-state-by-state/
And plenty of people didn’t have much science in high school, if they even got that far. So I disagree. What you say is true for some, but there are people at all levels of (un)education. 
Maggie

On Jan 23, 2021, at 2:01 PM, David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us> wrote:

Anyone graduating from US public school has had a lot of science, including a lot on the nature of science. You can look at the state K-12 standards to see what is taught in each grade. In the new Next Generation Science Standards there is even more emphasis on the nature of science, too much in my view because there is then less on the nature of the world around us. I suspect there is relatively little on the nature of research, but have not looked at that. Might be fun.

David Wojick

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 3:55:18 PM1/23/21
to Margaret Winker Cook, Jo De, Glenn Hampson, Rob Johnson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Maggie, 

As the article says, the Darwin issue is a long standing one. Even there the curricular issue is mostly just about the degree of certainty to be expressed. Origin of species via natural selection is still universally taught as a concept. 

But evolution is just a tiny part of the K-12 curriculum, nor is this about my region. I led a major ($600k) study of state science standards for the Energy Department's Office of Science. We even built a search algorithm that recognizes the grade level of scientific teaching materials based on content. See my (inactive) Stem Education Center:  http://www.stemed.info/

What I said below is true of all states. In high school one has to take just two out of four courses -- physics, chem, biology and earth science. So only roughly half of those graduating have taken any one of them. The last universal curriculum is in middle school. 

But a great deal is taught in each grade, upwards of 100 technical concepts or more a grade level. So much so that people at each grade level speak a different scientific language. This is why I laugh when people talk about writing something for young people. There are something like ten different knowledge communities. 

David

On Jan 23, 2021, at 4:31 PM, Margaret Winker Cook <margare...@gmail.com> wrote:



Margaret Winker

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 5:55:20 PM1/23/21
to David Wojick, Jo De, Glenn Hampson, Rob Johnson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Per this 2019 Pew Research US survey  “About four-in-ten Americans (39%) get between nine and 11 correct answers, classified as having high science knowledge on the 11-item scale or index. Roughly one-third (32%) are classified as having medium science knowledge (five to eight correct answers) and about three-in-ten (29%) are in the low science knowledge group (zero to four correct answers)...Roughly seven-in-ten (71%) Americans with a postgraduate degree are classified as high in science knowledge, answering at least nine of 11 items correctly. By contrast, about two-in-ten (19%) of those with a high school degree or less perform as well on the scale." We don't need to argue the fine points; there's enough evidence here and elsewhere to warrant developing some basic information.
Best wishes,
Maggie

On Jan 23, 2021, at 2:55 PM, David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us> wrote:

Maggie, 

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 5:58:48 PM1/23/21
to David Wojick, Margaret Winker Cook, Jo De, Rob Johnson, The Open Scholarship Initiative

David,

 

I’m afraid Maggie is right, emphatically so. There aren’t enough qualified STEM teachers in the US K-12 systems, most high school students graduate without an adequate background in math and science, and education quality varies widely by state (see here, for example, for an essay on the evolution of teaching about evolution). These aren’t just opinions--- scicomm literature is simply chock-full of statistics, surveys, outcome measures, etc. confirming this. I’m afraid that your DOE experience doesn’t reflect these current facts on the ground. Science literacy and belief in science are problems that have been with us for a while and probably won’t improve dramatically anytime soon.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

Anthony Watkinson

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 6:06:26 PM1/23/21
to David Wojick, Margaret Winker, Glenn Hampson, Jo De, Rob Johnson, The Open Scholarship Initiative

It is my experience of American graduates that your education leads to a more well-rounded understanding. As a graduate student I found that my humanities colleagues from the US knew more science than I did - in those days I was an ecclesiastical historian. Since then I am married to a scientist and have been mostly an STM publisher. I even was THE math publisher at OUP 1982-1985. I now pretend to be an information scientist. But this is an unusual progression which has helped me a lot - I hope.


In the UK it used to be norm to divide children at 13/14 into a science stream and a humanities stream and to some extend still is. Our prime minister is an example of someone who probably gave up any science as early as that. At university level we concentrate on a single subject and it is possible but very difficult to mix science and humanities in the way that you can do routinely with majors and minors.


Anthony

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">osi2016-25+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

--
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 unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">osi2016-25+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

--
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 unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">osi2016-25+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

--
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 unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">osi2016-25+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

--
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 unsub...@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">osi2016-25+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

--
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 unsub...@googlegroups.com">osi2016-25+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CAMy8g36JqPwJ2TNeP-jP8Eyezn-jZ%3Dq8iTcaSu%3D6S6DRtmq%3DiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

David Wojick

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 6:10:05 PM1/23/21
to Margaret Winker, Jo De, Glenn Hampson, Rob Johnson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
It sounds like the test is completely unrealistic. It would be interesting to compare it to what is actually taught. Then too there is age. I had my last biology course in 1958.

So I would say this test has no bearing on the question of how much science is taught, which we were discussing. I have actually studied in great detail how much science is taught in K-16.

David

On Jan 23, 2021, at 6:55 PM, Margaret Winker <margare...@gmail.com> wrote:



David Wojick

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 6:32:11 PM1/23/21
to Glenn Hampson, Margaret Winker Cook, Jo De, Rob Johnson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
I think you are completely wrong, Glenn. For example, if "adequate background" means something other than what is actually taught then it is a nonsensical concept. You cannot expect people to know what they have not been taught. 

The very idea that everyone should have a high degree of science literacy is certainly nonsensical. Very few people are interested in science, so they are literate in something that interests them. Science is simply not that important in most people's lives.

My original point remains that a lot of science is taught in K-12. (If you want more you have to say what else is taught less, something advocates never do.) Moreover, this instruction is enforced by a huge amount of testing, with federal funding on the line for good results. 

And to return to the point, if you want to communicate with people you have to speak to what they know. The motto of my STEM Education Center is "Write it so they can read it." A lot is not.

The so-called belief in science is another matter entirely. As I said in the beginning, there is a widespread belief that something is wrong with the present practice of science. This has nothing to do with K-12 education. My conjecture is that it is due to the politicization of science. We now see opposing political parties routinely advancing contradictory interpretations of the scientific literature. As a result science is now regarded by many people with the same skepticism as political opinion. What else can they think?

David

On Jan 23, 2021, at 6:58 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:



Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 6:55:21 PM1/23/21
to David Wojick, Margaret Winker, Jo De, Rob Johnson, The Open Scholarship Initiative

It’s just one survey among a great many David---just Google “science education” and you’ll get some sense of extensively programmed and analyzed this topic is. We aren’t talking about 1958 high school biology here 😊. And these metrics do indeed bear directly on literacy. The question is what people retain/believe, not what they were taught. Take algebra, for example. All high school students are taught algebra, but this also marks an inflection point for a great many students where they just can’t learn any more math---they hit algebra, they don’t get it, and so they lose interest in science and math at that point. Our metric isn’t how many students we’re teaching algebra, but how many students are learning it.

 

Cheers,

 

Glenn

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 23, 2021, 7:01:44 PM1/23/21
to David Wojick, Margaret Winker Cook, Jo De, Rob Johnson, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Let’s take this off-list if you’re interested in discussing more---just remove OSI from the cc.

 

Thanks much,

 

Glenn

 

From: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2021 4:34 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages