Graphics and Handouts
Battling Bad Science
We also have Ben Goldacre's book, Bad Science, and he has a website, Bad Science.
On the Replication Crisis
Note: some profanity -- It is John Oliver, after all!
Science Communication and Critique
"Communication and critique are important for the public understanding of and progress in science. In this PLOSCast, Elizabeth speaks with Hilda Bastian, an Editor at PubMed Commons. She connects her current work at PubMed Commons and her previous experience as a consumer health advocate in Australia to the importance of communication and critique of science in the public sphere." More (including links)...
Chicken Chicken Chicken Presented
Communicating Science
- AAAS Science Communication Toolkit
From the Center for Public Engagement with Science & Technology at AAAS - "Message Box" Workbook
A communication tool from science communication training organization, Compass. - Communicating Science: Giving Talks
Free PDF from the Burroughs Wellcome Funds Career Series. Also includes additional links to more resources. - Why should scientists use Twitter?
From the American Geophysical Union's science communication blog, The Plainspoken Scientist - Case Studies from "Calling Bullshit" CourseHow NOT to communicate science--case studies from a course from the University of Washington. See the entire Syllabus with many useful readings and examples
- Thinking Through Information Literacy in Your DisciplineQuestions about how information literacy might be examined, and taught, within your discipline
Resources for Fact Checking Science
- SciCheck from FactCheck.orgA science fact checking project from one of the major fact checking organizations.
- Climate FeedbackMedia/journalism fact checking specifically for climate change
- Health News ReviewChecking the accuracy of health claims in the media
- Pro-Science SourcesSources determined to be legitimate/accurate science reporting by the Media Bias Fact Check project
- Cochrane Systematic ReviewsThe Cochrane evidence-based systematic reviews are the largest and most organized health/medical fact checking organization. Summaries are free on the website, and full reviews can be accessed via the Library's subscription
- Science Literacy ProjectA series of articles for journalists on understanding science, including fact checking and statistics. Based on a workshop series supported by the US Dept. of Energy.
- Retraction WatchEven the best journals (sometimes, especially the best journals) end up with errors. Retraction Watch follows and chronicles retractions of published work.
Resources for Critiquing (student edition)
- How to critique a journal article from the University of Illinois at Springfield (PDF)Questions to answer in a critique
- How to Read and Review a Scientific Article from Duke University (PDF)First summarize, then critique
- How to read and interpret different types of research from the BMJQualitative, reviews, economics, statistics, and more
- Checklist for critiquing an article (Word file)A list of things to cover in a critique
How to review an article (researcher edition)
- How I Review an Original Scientific ArticleHoppin Jr, F. G. (2002). American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 166(8), 1019-1023.
With a letter and response. - A Systematic Guide to Reviewing a ManuscriptProvenzale, J. M., & Stanley, R. J. (2006). Journal of nuclear medicine technology, 34(2), 92-99.
- How to review a manuscript: a "down-to-earth" approach.Roberts, L. W., Coverdale, J., Edenharder, K., & Louie, A. (2004). Academic Psychiatry, 28(2), 81-87.
- What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?Schroter, S., Black, N., Evans, S., Godlee, F., Osorio, L., & Smith, R. (2008). Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101(10), 507-514.
A few ideas for the future of peer review:
- Publons: Tracking Peer ReviewA network to increase the status and professionalism of peer reviewing. Publishing partners include Sage, Nature, Springer, Wiley, etc.
- What is open peer review?Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 1; referees: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2017, 6:588. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11369.1