Societal challenges like migration movements, climate change, or digitization show that there is a pressing need for informed expertise from virtually all fields of research. Yet, scientific knowledge often remains within its domain and reaches civil society only indirectly and delayed. In a 5-year citation window, 27% of the papers from natural sciences and 32% of the papers from social sciences remain uncited.
Expressed pointedly: While the need for scientific expertise is perhaps greater than ever, scientists produce papers that nobody reads. Moreover, neologisms like “alternative facts” suggest a noticeable loss of the scientific authority in the public opinion. All this raises a difficult question: What is the impact of science? In the next couple of weeks we will address this issue in more detail.
What is your take on Impact? We welcome contributions on this topic.
Adrián A. Díaz-Faes analyses four dimensions of twitter metrics around science in a quantitative study.
Fecher and Kobsda introduce the Research Impact Canvas – a structured guide to plan science communication activities.
Marion Poetz on what it takes to foster innovation in Science and how to make it more interesting for companies and organizations.
Gregor Hagedorn, the initiator of Science for Future, explains how Scientists for Future uses a pro-active form of science communication to draw attention to global challenges.
How to support scientists in increasing the visibility and impact of their research? Tamika Heiden shows insights from her work.
Doing research and getting paid for it is fantastic, but how to do that sustainably? Kalle Korhonen tells you how to maintain the interest of research funders.
Search for the truth, but also provide contributions to problem-solving and make reliable predictions.
What should a scientist do if he or she realized that there is an error in research? What kind of implications can this have on their future career?
The conflict for scientists and research evaluation between scientific impact and tackling societal challenges.
An interview with Kai Chan and his strategies to seek the combination of both kinds of impacts.
“Scientists who oversell their results are a big problem for science.”
The case for decentralized, trusted platforms for the dissemination of scientific information and attribution.
Christopher Aiden-Lee Jackson researches the Earth’s structure. In his opinion, scientists have to care more about informing their findings to policymakers.
Twitter is a centerpiece of modern public communication. But the question must be asked: Is Twitter worth all that attention?
Open Science advocate Shakib Wassey tells how a digital platform for open scientific publication and interactive evaluation could change scientific publishing.