{"title":"公众参与 COVID-19 预印本:缩小科学家与社会之间的差距","authors":"Justus Henke","doi":"10.1162/qss_a_00302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The surge in preprint server use, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, necessitates a reex-amination of their significance in the realm of science communication. This study rigorously investigates discussions surrounding preprints, framing them within the contexts of systems theory and boundary objects in scholarly communication. An analysis of a curated selection of COVID-19-related preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv was conducted, emphasizing those that transitioned to journal publications, alongside the associated commentary and Twitter ac-tivity. The dataset was bifurcated into comments by biomedical experts versus those by non-experts, encompassing both academic and general public perspectives. Findings revealed that while peers dominated nearly half the preprint discussions, their presence in Twitter dialogues was markedly diminished. Yet, intriguingly, the themes explored by these two groups diverged considerably. Preprints emerged as potent boundary objects, reinforcing, rather than obscuring, the delineation between scientific and non-scientific discourse. They serve as crucial conduits for knowledge dissemination and foster inter-disciplinary engagements. Nonetheless, the inter-play between scientists and the wider public remains nuanced, necessitating strategies to incor-porate these diverse discussions into the peer review continuum without compromising aca-demic integrity and to cultivate sustained engagement from both experts and the broader community.\n \n \n https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_a_00302\n","PeriodicalId":34021,"journal":{"name":"Quantitative Science Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public Engagement with COVID-19 Preprints: Bridging the Gap Between Scientists and Society\",\"authors\":\"Justus Henke\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/qss_a_00302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The surge in preprint server use, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, necessitates a reex-amination of their significance in the realm of science communication. This study rigorously investigates discussions surrounding preprints, framing them within the contexts of systems theory and boundary objects in scholarly communication. An analysis of a curated selection of COVID-19-related preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv was conducted, emphasizing those that transitioned to journal publications, alongside the associated commentary and Twitter ac-tivity. The dataset was bifurcated into comments by biomedical experts versus those by non-experts, encompassing both academic and general public perspectives. Findings revealed that while peers dominated nearly half the preprint discussions, their presence in Twitter dialogues was markedly diminished. Yet, intriguingly, the themes explored by these two groups diverged considerably. Preprints emerged as potent boundary objects, reinforcing, rather than obscuring, the delineation between scientific and non-scientific discourse. They serve as crucial conduits for knowledge dissemination and foster inter-disciplinary engagements. Nonetheless, the inter-play between scientists and the wider public remains nuanced, necessitating strategies to incor-porate these diverse discussions into the peer review continuum without compromising aca-demic integrity and to cultivate sustained engagement from both experts and the broader community.\\n \\n \\n https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_a_00302\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":34021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quantitative Science Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quantitative Science Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00302\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quantitative Science Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Public Engagement with COVID-19 Preprints: Bridging the Gap Between Scientists and Society
The surge in preprint server use, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, necessitates a reex-amination of their significance in the realm of science communication. This study rigorously investigates discussions surrounding preprints, framing them within the contexts of systems theory and boundary objects in scholarly communication. An analysis of a curated selection of COVID-19-related preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv was conducted, emphasizing those that transitioned to journal publications, alongside the associated commentary and Twitter ac-tivity. The dataset was bifurcated into comments by biomedical experts versus those by non-experts, encompassing both academic and general public perspectives. Findings revealed that while peers dominated nearly half the preprint discussions, their presence in Twitter dialogues was markedly diminished. Yet, intriguingly, the themes explored by these two groups diverged considerably. Preprints emerged as potent boundary objects, reinforcing, rather than obscuring, the delineation between scientific and non-scientific discourse. They serve as crucial conduits for knowledge dissemination and foster inter-disciplinary engagements. Nonetheless, the inter-play between scientists and the wider public remains nuanced, necessitating strategies to incor-porate these diverse discussions into the peer review continuum without compromising aca-demic integrity and to cultivate sustained engagement from both experts and the broader community.
https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_a_00302