FAQ. Does Engaging Science, Technology, and Society have a Citation Impact Factor? Not yet. As soon as we have published a range of strong articles we will be able to apply to Reuters for inclusion in the Science Citation Index.How many words long can my submission be? Please refer to the Submission Guidelines for a range of submission specifications. Quickly, word limit targets are as follows: Standard Research Articles (9k words); Critical Engagements (1k words); Considering Concepts (2k words); Debates/Interactions (5k words); Review Essays (5k words); Traces (6k words); Thematic Collections/Spcecial Issues (9k words per article - same as for standard research articles)What editorial style should I follow?
Please use American English [e.g., “analyze” (not “analyse”); “organize” (not “organize”); “center” (not “centre”) and so on]. When citing within the text, please use (Author date), as in: ….history of technology (Bowker 1994; Hughes 1983). Articles: Guston, David H., E. Books: Science: How the Status Quo Harms its Cultural Authority - King - 2017 - BioEssays. Science: How the Status Quo Harms its Cultural Authority - King - 2017 - BioEssays.
Communicating contested geoscience to the public: Moving from ‘matters of fact’ to ‘matters of concern’ Geological issues are increasingly intruding on the everyday lives of ordinary people. Whether it is the onshore extraction of oil and gas, the subsurface injection of waters for geothermal power or the deep storage of waste products, communities across the world are being confronted with controversial geological interventions beneath their backyards. Communicating these complex scientific and technical issues is made more challenging by the general public's unfamiliarity with the geological realm. Cognitive studies confirm a cultural dissonance with the subsurface and highlight lay anxieties about tampering with nature.
In addressing those concerns, factual information is argued to be subordinate to values and beliefs in shaping public perspectives on contested geoscientific issues. Choose an option to locate/access this article: Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Author Affiliations Edited by Roger E. Kasperson, Clark University, Worcester, MA, and approved July 19, 2017 (received for review March 23, 2017) Significance Public opinion toward some science and technology issues is polarized along religious and political lines. Abstract Although Americans generally hold science in high regard and respect its findings, for some contested issues, such as the existence of anthropogenic climate change, public opinion is polarized along religious and political lines. Footnotes Author contributions: C.D. and B.F. designed research; C.D. performed research; C.D. analyzed data; and C.D. and B.F. wrote the paper. SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research.
Time to democratise science. By Dan Hind Some of the taxpayers’ money that pours into research should be directly allocated by the public, argues Dan Hind THE natural and social sciences exert a huge influence on the ways our societies develop. At present most of the funding for scientific research is controlled by the state and the private economy.
Perhaps it is time to look at their track record and consider an alternative. In economics, we already have damning evidence that the funding system isn’t working. As the investment banker turned financial reformer Philip Augar has pointed out, over a period of 30 years the discipline became a servant of the financial sector. “Finance wrapped its tentacles around the relevant parts of the academic world… it is little wonder that so much academic research was supportive of the financial system.” Advertisement As a source of world-changing knowledge, the social sciences are as nothing when compared with the natural sciences. This remains true today. ‘Ik vind de onderkant van de samenleving te belangrijk om aan links over te laten’ Public Perceptions of Expert Credibility on Policy Issues: The Role of Expert Framing and Political Worldviews - Lachapelle - 2014 - Policy Studies Journal.
Bibliotheek Den Haag - Wetenschap is ook maar een mening. - Een programma over feiten en fictie op 12 november in de Centrale Bibliotheek. Woensdag 12 november / 20:30 - 22:00 uur / Centrale Bibliotheek / Spui 68 Onderzoekers lijken de kop van jut. De mondige burger laat zich niet zo gemakkelijk meer voorschrijven wat waar is en wat niet. Alles is toch te vinden op internet? Verliest de wetenschap zo haar geloofwaardigheid, en zo ja, hoe krijgt ze die weer terug? Een gesprek met viroloog Roel Coutinho, schrijver Frank Westerman ('Stikvallei'), chef wetenschap van De Volkskrant Maarten Keulemans en Geert Munnichs, onderzoeker van het Rathenau instituut. Waarom luisteren zoveel mensen liever naar indianenverhalen van anonieme zelfbenoemde deskundigen dan naar iemand die “ervoor gestudeerd heeft”?
Soms doet de wetenschap harde voorspellingen die vervolgens niet, of slechts gedeeltelijk, uitkomen. Waar, hoe laat en wat kost het? Voor leden van Bibliotheek Den Haag, CJP, studenten, klanten met Paagman aankoopbon, Ooievaarspas: € 6,-. Speak up : Naturejobs. Peter Fiske argues that too many young scientists adopt a passive voice, to the detriment of their careers. When I was in graduate school studying geology and environmental sciences, many of my professors insisted that we students write our manuscripts in the passive voice: “This was done” rather than “I did this”. They reasoned that removing the agent from the description of the action lent an objective tone. As scientists, we stood apart from our work and encouraged others to critique it (rather than us). Today, teachers are much more likely to advocate use of the active voice in manuscripts. In general, the active voice is more readable and engaging, which can be particularly helpful in light of the sometimes turgid prose of scientific papers.
In the years since I moved from academic science to business, young scientists have started to adopt a more active tone in their manuscripts. Modesty or arrogance? Collaboration is a case in point. Public perceptions. Survey suggests half of EU citizens believe scientists are 'dangerous' | Science. Europeans recognise the benefits of science but are fearful of the power that knowledge gives to scientists. Photograph: Juan Carlos Ulate/Reuters Despite World Cup and Wimbledon fever, a survey published this week suggests that more Europeans are interested in scientific discoveries and technological developments than are interested in sport.
According to the latest Eurobarometer survey for the European Commission, 80% are interested in science and technology whereas 65% are interested in sport. However, the same survey found that 57% think scientists should be doing more to communicate their work to the general public and 66% believe governments should do more to interest young people in scientific issues. Europeans overwhelmingly recognise the benefits of science, but many also express fears about risks from new technologies and the power that knowledge gives to scientists. An alarming 58% of respondents across the European Union agreed that: The figure falls to 49% for UK respondents. Science Communication as Political Communication. The great potential of citizen science: restoring the role of tacit knowledge and amateur discovery. Citizen science is nothing new, but what makes internet-enabled citizen science different, is the sheer scale of amateur involvement.
Benedikt Fecher sees great potential for citizen science, but argues a return to smaller-scale, high-involvement projects would be beneficial. This alternative model depends on citizen analysis, rather than just data collection. The core challenges for this kind of citizen science is to motivate and enable expert volunteers to make a long-term commitment to a scientific problem. What do Benjamin Franklin, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and Francis Bacon have in common? Discovery is a matter of thirst for adventure Citizen science is in fact an old hat. Citizen science’s second spring Today, citizen science is experiencing a second spring and it is no surprise that the internet has had a hand in it.
Berlin Wall; East Side Gallery – Author’s photo The logic of Internet-based citizen science: Large scale, low involvement The advantages of citizen science. Welcome to the Age of Denial. In 1989, when “climate change” had just entered the public lexicon, 63 percent of Americans understood it was a problem. Almost 25 years later, that proportion is actually a bit lower, at 58 percent. The timeline of these polls defines my career in science. In 1982 I was an undergraduate physics major. In 1989 I was a graduate student. My dream was that, in a quarter-century, I would be a professor of astrophysics, introducing a new generation of students to the powerful yet delicate craft of scientific research.
Much of that dream has come true. This is not a world the scientists I trained with would recognize. The triumph of Western science led most of my professors to believe that progress was inevitable. Today, however, it is politically effective, and socially acceptable, to deny scientific fact. The list goes on. What do I tell my students? My professors’ generation could respond to silliness like creationism with head-scratching bemusement. What I Learned From Debating Science With Trolls. Tussen onderzoek en samenleving — Product_Images-a36bf0652a99.jpg (350×261) Www.boomlemmatijdschriften.nl/tijdschrift/sociologie/2010/1/TS_1574-3314_2010_006_001_002.pdf. Www.wrr.nl/fileadmin/nl/publicaties/PDF-overige_uitgaven/Rapport_Vertrouwen_in_de_Wetenschap_WEBnw.pdf.