The first Japan Scicom Forum in Tokyo on April 20, 2018 gathered nearly 120 attendees to discuss the growing need and demand for English-language science communication in Japan and Asia. Keynotes and workshops addressed both the philosophy and motivations for scicomm in Japan and also the best practices for international outreach. Global science communication has reached a critical mass in Japan but securing sustainable funding, integrating the community and retaining momentum present ongoing challenges. As an online community and (hopefully) a recurring event, Japan Scicom Forum will foster a
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Ayumi KosoAmanda Alvarez
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
There are strong arguments for and against having either a dedicated funding scheme for science communication in the next European Framework Programme, or mainstreaming upstream engagement across all disciplines. How could both approaches be combined? The success of either will depend on its operationalisation.
With “Horizon Europe”, the European Commission sets out the framework for research and innovation in Europe over the next seven years. The proposal outlines the contours of an innovative science policy that is open and responsive to societal needs, and where societal actors jointly undertake missions to discover sustainable solutions to present-day and future challenges. In our commentary we point to a number of modifications needed to strengthen the cross-cutting implementation of activities for societal engagement and responsible research and innovation.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Bjørn BedstedLise BitschLars KlüverRasmus Øjvind NielsenMarie Louise Jørgensen
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is gaining momentum worldwide and is envisaged as a needed tool to properly govern controversial innovative technology (i.e. genome editing, AI). Europe is considered a leader in fostering such approach, notably through its institutionalization. Even so, the future of European Research and Innovation (R&I) seems to be designed without a central role for RRI. After long effort and so much public EU money to support projects to ground RRI principles and practices in key contexts for the flourishing of science and technology in Europe, such as the
At the beginning of May, 2018, the European Commission has presented its proposal for Horizon Europe, the framework programme which defines priorities and budget distribution for the future of European Research and Innovation (2021–2027). The announcement has raised concerns within the community of stakeholders engaged in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), a democratization process leading to connecting science to the values and interests of European citizens by mean of participatory processes. Through this flash commentary we aim at providing a wide range of arguments, as well as
Since the early 1990s, there has been a considerable increase in the number of scientific studies on science communication, and this increase has been accompanied by a diversification of the research field. This study focuses on one aspect of this development: it analyses how citation network structures within the field have developed over time, and whether science communication research shows signs of becoming a research field or a discipline in its own right. Employing a co-citation analysis of scholarly publications published between 1996 and 2015, it assesses to what extent a coherent
Modern science communication has emerged as a field of study, a body of practice and a profession. In the last 60 years, we have seen the birth of interactive science centres, university courses, the first research into science communication, and a growth in employment by research institutions, universities, museums, science centres and industry. Now Ireland has told its story.
This commentary introduces a preliminary conceptual framework for approaching putative effects of scholarly online systems on collaboration inside and outside of academia. The first part outlines a typology of scholarly online systems (SOS), i.e., the triad of specialised portals, specialised information services and scholarly online networks which is developed on the basis of nine German examples. In its second part, the commentary argues that we know little about collaborative scholarly community building by means of SOS. The commentary closes with some remarks on further research questions
Web-based information and communication systems extend access for scientific communities to information such as publications or research data and provide the opportunity to collaborate with other scientists. Our comment gives a short sketch of the Information Service Sociology (short: FID Sociology), in which we aim at designing and developing such an information and communication infrastructure within the field of Sociology. To this end, it comprises (i) an approach for simplified publishing of open access publications, (ii) an integrated search across multiple sociological databases, and
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Johanne SchaibleSonja StrunkDavid Brodesser
This comment focuses on an early case of an open infrastructure that emerged in the 1990s in international astronomy. It targets the reasons for this infrastructure’s tremendous success and starts with a few comments on the term ‘digital infrastructure’. Subsequently, it provides a brief description of the most important components of the infrastructure in astronomy. In a third step, the use of one component — the arXiv, an open access repository for manuscripts — is analyzed. It concludes with some considerations about the success and acceptance of this infrastructure in astronomy.
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Niels Taubert
resourceresearchProfessional Development, Conferences, and Networks
While most researchers still primarily use emails and simple websites for professional communication, the number of specialised online portals, information services and scholarly social online networks is constantly growing. This development led to the 6th workshop organized by the team of openTA, an online portal for technology assessment. This issue of JCOM pools commentaries on the workshop which deal with questions such as: what are the criteria of successful digital infrastructures? Which potential for changing workflows or scholarly interaction and collaboration patterns do we ascribe to
The summative evaluation documents and articulates what SCIENCES has improved or changed, and in what ways. The final design of the summative evaluation was based on findings from the front-end and formative evaluations, including using participatory evaluation techniques to engage community members in discussing their experience with the programs and assessment of community needs and assets at the close of the project.
The goal of the summative evaluation was to address discrete program impacts in the context of the project, as well as the cross-program impact of providing a thematically