公众参与 COVID-19 预印本:缩小科学家与社会之间的差距

IF 4.1 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Justus Henke
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

预印本服务器使用量的激增,尤其是在 Covid-19 大流行期间,使得我们有必要重新审视预印本在科学交流领域的意义。本研究严格调查了围绕预印本的讨论,将其置于系统理论和学术交流中的边界对象的背景下。研究分析了从 bioRxiv 和 medRxiv 中精心挑选的 COVID-19 相关预印本,重点分析了那些过渡到期刊出版物的预印本,以及相关的评论和 Twitter 活动。数据集分为生物医学专家评论和非专家评论,涵盖了学术界和普通公众的观点。研究结果显示,虽然同行主导了近一半的预印本讨论,但他们在推特对话中的存在却明显减少。然而,有趣的是,这两个群体所探讨的主题却大相径庭。预印本是一种有效的边界对象,它加强而不是模糊了科学与非科学话语之间的界限。预印本是传播知识和促进学科间交流的重要渠道。然而,科学家与更广泛的公众之间的相互影响仍然存在细微差别,这就需要制定策略,在不损害学术完整性的前提下将这些不同的讨论纳入同行评审的连续体中,并培养专家和更广泛的社区的持续参与。https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1162/qss_a_00302。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quantitative Science Studies
Quantitative Science Studies INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
12.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
46
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信