2018
Sarabipour, Sarvenaz; Wissink, Erin M.; Burgess, Steven J.; Hensel, Zach; Debat, Humberto; Emmott, Edward; Akay, Alper; Akdemir, Kadir; Schwessinger, Benjamin
Maintaining confidence in the reporting of scientific outputs Technical Report
PeerJ Preprints no. e27098v1, 2018, ISSN: 2167-9843.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: academic publishing, Open science, Peer review, Preprints, science communication, science journalism
@techreport{sarabipour_maintaining_2018,
title = {Maintaining confidence in the reporting of scientific outputs},
author = {Sarvenaz Sarabipour and Erin M. Wissink and Steven J. Burgess and Zach Hensel and Humberto Debat and Edward Emmott and Alper Akay and Kadir Akdemir and Benjamin Schwessinger},
url = {https://peerj.com/preprints/27098},
doi = {10.7287/peerj.preprints.27098v1},
issn = {2167-9843},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-08-01},
urldate = {2024-05-30},
number = {e27098v1},
institution = {PeerJ Preprints},
abstract = {The timely and accurate dissemination of scientific discoveries is of utmost importance so that scientific knowledge can be advanced and applied to benefit the public. Scientists communicate amongst themselves at conferences, via journal articles, and, increasingly in the life sciences, in preprint manuscripts which have not been subject to peer review. Journalists translate new research into a language the public can understand, relying on both work presented in scientific forums and interviews with experts. Critically, scientists and journalists both share the ethical principle that publications should be rigorously sourced and fact-checked, with errors subject to publicized corrections. Here we respond to concerns raised about the impact of reporting on results that have not passed through peer review, calling for improved dialogue between scientists and journalists to maintain public trust in research and arguing that imposing limits is against the public interest.},
keywords = {academic publishing, Open science, Peer review, Preprints, science communication, science journalism},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
The timely and accurate dissemination of scientific discoveries is of utmost importance so that scientific knowledge can be advanced and applied to benefit the public. Scientists communicate amongst themselves at conferences, via journal articles, and, increasingly in the life sciences, in preprint manuscripts which have not been subject to peer review. Journalists translate new research into a language the public can understand, relying on both work presented in scientific forums and interviews with experts. Critically, scientists and journalists both share the ethical principle that publications should be rigorously sourced and fact-checked, with errors subject to publicized corrections. Here we respond to concerns raised about the impact of reporting on results that have not passed through peer review, calling for improved dialogue between scientists and journalists to maintain public trust in research and arguing that imposing limits is against the public interest.