Ten simple rules for improving communication among scientists

Communication is a fundamental part of scientific development and methodology. With the advancement of the internet and social networks, communication has become rapid and sometimes overwhelming, especially in science. It is important to provide scientists with useful, effective, and dynamic tools to establish and build a fluid communication framework that allows for scientific advancement. Therefore, in this article, we present advice and recommendations that can help promote and improve science communication while respecting an adequate balance in the degree of commitment toward collaborative work. We have developed 10 rules shown in increasing order of commitment that are grouped into 3 key categories: (1) speak (based on active participation); (2) join (based on joining scientific groups); and (3) assess (based on the analysis and retrospective consideration of the weaknesses and strengths). We include examples and resources that provide actionable strategies for involvement and engagement with science communication, from basic steps to more advanced, introspective, and long-term commitments. Overall, we aim to help spread science from within and encourage and engage scientists to become involved in science communication effectively and dynamically.     

By the scientists, for the scientists

My association with the JCB began very early in my scientific career. In fact, it predated my understanding that there would even be a scientific career. In the mid-1970s while still an undergraduate, the JCB published my very first paper, a contribution noted perhaps less so for its reporting the characterization of the first known protein in plant cell walls than for a footnote that called attention to the evolutionary conservation of a relationship between “sex and slime” throughout the plant and animal kingdoms.     

The Kardashian index: a measure of discrepant social media profile for scientists

In the era of social media there are now many different ways that a scientist can build their public profile; the publication of high-quality scientific papers being just one. While social media is a valuable tool for outreach and the sharing of ideas, there is a danger that this form of communication is gaining too high a value and that we are losing sight of key metrics of scientific value, such as citation indices. To help quantify this, I propose the ‘Kardashian Index’, a measure of discrepancy between a scientist’s social media profile and publication record based on the direct comparison of numbers of citations and Twitter followers.     

Dynamics of the public concern and risk communication program implementation

Abstract

The public concern about electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure varies due to different reasons. A part of them are connected with the better and higher quality of information that people receive from science, media, Internet, social networks, industry, but others are based on good communication programs performed by the responsible institutions, administration and persons. Especially, in Bulgaria, public concern follows interesting changes, some of them in correlation with the European processes of concern, but others following the economic and political processes in the country. Here, we analyze the dynamics of the public concern over the last 10 years. Our explanation of the decrease of the people’s complaints against EMF exposure from base stations for mobile communication is as a result of our risk communication program that is in implementation for >10 years.