Jon Tennant

and 1 more

In the digital age, how are people supposed to know what you’re doing if you don’t share it with them? We are moving into a research age that is all about breaking down barriers, by embracing the reason why the Web was created - for sharing knowledge. We are recognising as a collective that collaboration and communities are more powerful than individuals and isolation. The parallels are everywhere, in the open source and open education movements, for example. For me as a researcher, open science has always been a complex beast to comprehend as a process. But as a vision, it was easy, based on the underlying principles of freedom and sharing. Social media was one way of helping to push forward towards that vision, by reshaping how I both think and operate as a researcher. And you know what? It’s liberating. Knowing there is a world beyond your desk or lab bench, where people are genuinely interested in your work, and want to interact with you and help build you up as a researcher and a person. You feel connected to like-minded spirits, and are empowered by the presence of others also trying to break down ivory towers and walls and make research something for everyone. I would not be where I am now without social media. There is an enormous, welcoming, and energetic community of researchers out there who every single day are a support mechanism for unleashing your potential as a researcher. For example, the OpenCon community is something I would not be part of without dabbling in social media, and through it learning about the open access trade. OpenCon was the first time as an academic I felt truly passionate about, well, anything - it was like an inferno was lit inside me, and I felt this burning desire to commit to this vision for an ’Open World’ as much as possible, and to help others see it too. Two years down the line, I spend every day now supporting the principles of open through various aspects of the scholarly communication process. Social media plays a huge role in this, as part of a massive scale structural re-think towards how we treat and regard knowledge as a society. Social platforms help us to re-shape cultural attitudes towards knowledge generation, and the sharing of that knowledge for the betterment of everyone. Being open about my own research and sharing my work on social media as it was still ongoing has led to many successful collaborations. I have been fortunate to be included now on three research publications, which I would not otherwise have been involved in if other researchers involved hadn’t seen that I was working on similar things by sharing them on social media. In an academic climate where papers are still the trading currency, this collaboration has been invaluable in improving my profile as a researcher, but also in opening up a whole new channel of learning that otherwise would have been closed to me. Often with social media, it’s not obvious what opportunities will present themselves, but you sure as hell won’t find out unless you actually give it a shot and make a commitment. As well as for academic networking, social media can be a powerful platform for public engagement. It is imperative that scientists bond more with wider society to help foster a greater understanding of the world around us. Indeed, what’s the point in doing research after all if no-one is going to learn from it? In spite of this, using social platforms in this manner is still often viewed as superlative to the ‘real work’ of researchers. So, research. Often when people ask me about Twitter or blogging, they say “Oh, that must be good for your CV”, or something similar. Which kind of misses the point entirely - we do these things because of a deep belief that science belongs to everyone, not to parade ourselves around in public. It needs to be seen that research and broader dissemination of research are not disparate, opposite, or disconnected. Research has not been complete until it has been communicated in the best possible way to the maximal audience possible. Realisation of this is the first major step towards embedding a wider sense of ‘science for society’ in our research culture, and being part of reaching a collective vision that science belongs to everyone and not just the priveleged few.


and 2 more

[] _Social_ is probably the last word that people who know me well (Hi Mom!) would use to describe me. But being one of those pesky _millenials_, I was born too late to ever get to know the (academic) Dark Ages intimately, i.e. the pre-internet past. That, and my abysmal high school diploma, which made sure that no university would accept me for studies in the two years after finishing school – afforded me lots of spare time for _professional social networking/instagramming_, or _blogging_ as it was called then. So I came, somewhat naturally, from blogging about my daily routines to writing about my adventures in the lab, studying and doing science. At some point in ~2008 this developed into the idea of doing a joint science blog with Philipp, then my fellow student of biology, now my co-conspirator on _openSNP_. Being good students we came up with the blog’s title, _Beerology_, after a couple of those I assume (nope, the pun doesn’t really work better in German). Writing about our studies, the latest scientific papers we had read and about the political changes in European Academia not only helped in learning about other perspectives through comments, but also in more tangible scientific experiences. Besides regularly meeting up with other blogging scientists, it also helped in getting around a bit, like like my trip to the _Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings_ in 2010. Many of the friendships formed on these trips are good and lasting. In the best case allowing me to Erdős-esk crash on couches around the globe, re-visiting friends wherever the academic life brings me to. This already means the world if you’ve been on the research-travel-circuit for long enough. However, it probably won't convince everyone of the benefits of social media. Especially not if you're dealing with people who for example complain about things like _professional instagramming_. So let’s instead turn to the metrics that scientists care about: getting publications out. According to Google Scholar I’ve (co-)published 12 manuscripts since 2012. Why is this relevant in the context of discussing the benefits of Social Media for your research? Well, just looking through these I find that OVER 40% OF MY PUBLICATIONS WERE ONLY EVER WRITTEN IN THAT FORM THANKS TO SOCIAL MEDIA. My Master’s degree in Ecology & Evolution nicely explains my work on plants/fungi/fish/rabbit poop (yes, that’s a thing). But my work on bioethics and personal genomics is not a natural fit to my professional education, to say the least. And this is because those were developed completely independently, to a good extent even while I was still finishing up said degree. First, there are the two publications on family-wide personal genomics and crowdsourced personal genomics. These go back to Philipp and me finding the work by @manuelcorpas on these topics more or less accidentally on Twitter & Reddit. Some tweets & emails back-and-forth later I was not only sitting on a plane to the UK to meet in person & discuss how to improve our project _openSNP_, but it also led to two very cool papers, with one of them even being the second-most influential paper in that journal for that year. In a similar way the collaborations with @EffyVayena go back to Twitter as far as I can tell. Besides working on participant-led research, we also did a large survey amongst the users of _openSNP_, collecting very useful data on our cohort, which is being analyzed and written up right now. It’s hard to overstate how useful these connections have been and still are, especially given that I was still early in my career at the time of embarking on those collaborations. Usually you don’t easily get the opportunity to form international collaborations as a Master’s student. But thanks to social media you might as well, especially if you want to connect with people outside your own narrow research field. Because if it was not for social media, I probably would not have been doing some social science. So the TL;DR is: SOCIAL MEDIA ISN’T ONLY GREAT TO FIND PEOPLE TO TALK SCIENCE TO, BUT ALSO TO FIND PEOPLE WITH WHOM YOU CAN ACTUALLY DO SCIENCE.
Social media is like a magnet that can draw attention to our research One day I received an email from a researcher who is living in Japan. He said there’s something wrong with my supplementary data set which was published in a paper in 2014. Apparently there was a miss-location in one of the coordinates. Recently, I received an email from a fellow researcher from UK asking for my availability to be the co-PI (Principal Investigator) on a project. Both researchers said they know me and my work from social media. I EVEN GOT INVITED FOR A COFFEE SCIENCE-TALK ORIGINATING FROM A “MENTION” ON TWITTER. Social media opens what once a closed-loop Although Indonesia is the 4th most populated country in the world, it doesn’t make our research have more impact. This is mostly due to language barrier and limited network. FOR YEARS WE TEND TO DO RESEARCH ONLY AS PERSONAL OR ORGANIZATIONAL EVENT, NO MORE AND NO LESS. Nevertheless, out of that manner, we demand acknowledgment, citations, and better yet we use that citation counts to judge who are more prominent than others. Research had been placed as a closed-loop activity, with no attention from others except the team member itself. More and more research will ended up as closed report and then locked up in somebody’s drawers or some dusty shelves in the library. Social media could be the answer we’ve been looking for. Continue reading and we will show you that IT IS THE ANSWER WE’VE BEEN LOOKING FOR. Please kindly visit my ScienceOpen interview with Jon Tennant. Social media creates and opens more doors of opportunity Before we know and use social media, as academics living in a developing country, we have suffered from brain drain, lack of ideas, lack of facilities, lack of information and limited network. Today, we can harvest ideas in a snap, add some thoughts, and having more ideas in return. We can exchange ideas with people from the other side of the globe (or other part of the world, for those who believe the earth is flat-your choice). We know about the latest work/ scholarship offers within minutes. It is that easy. We read more science than ever before; we learn from it and disseminate it further. Borrowing [@Thesiswhisperer]( ’s words “WHEN I READ THE TWEETS OF OTHERS I CONSUME THEIR THOUGHTS AND IDEAS”. We believe people now capture ideas more quickly from social media feeds. Instead of have a direct conversation, most of us are now skillful in fast reading and typing to explain something in less than 160 characters. Social media attracts more scientific-generousity So you might ask what did we and so many others do on social media. Did we just create and respond to random posts or chats, spend more time on it than on our real work, the one we get paid for? No, we simply share what we know and re-tweet others’ that we thought would be valuable for our followers. It could be an inspirational one, a knowledge-driven one, or even a funny one. We don’t intend to brag (or humblebrag) about what we do, we’re just letting others know what we have achieved, and what we have not due to many obstacles. Share the ones we know and the ones we don’t. A KIND SOUL WOULD STEP FORWARD AND TELL YOU WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOUR WORK AND HOW YOU CAN MAKE IT MORE SOUND. Social media multiplies learning curve Many times, we just send out words. We don’t know who would read nor deeply care about them, but oftentimes people just show up and send us their opinions, corrections, and inputs to expand and enrich our work. On the other hand, simplest rule of nature applies, “you reap what you sow”. SOCIAL MEDIA IS A GIANT ‘TAKE AND GIVE’ SPYDER WEB. We share solutions, instant help, or just send our sincere and deepest sympathy. In the future, others will help you in a way you could never predict. OUR NUMBER ONE MOTTO AS HEALTHY AND BREATHING ACADEMICS IS ‘THE MORE WE SHARE THE MORE WE LEARN’. Isn’t it a wonderful way to live our life?

Bálint Botz

and 1 more

We can consider ourselves lucky. We live in a „dreamtime” of abundant and easily accessible knowledge, the importance of which is hard to overestimate. The advent of the internet democratized the availability of information, and made long-distance communication essentially free. Before, even simple tasks like finding academic papers meant browsing through volumes of reference works, often only to find that the article of interest is only available through costly interlibrary loans. The chance of never stumbling upon something that could have been useful was in no small part a matter of luck. Interacting with researchers and the public was infrequent and limited. The digital revolution eliminated these constraints – but there are new challenges ahead.The way scientists are doing things has fundamentally changed, yet the status quo and the inequality of the academic landscape is largely unaffected. Papers published in the so-called „glamour journals” are on average somewhat better, but tend to get several magnitudes greater number of citations than those published in more modest periodicals. Though the accessibility of the top and mid/low-tier journals is now basically the same, yet the Matthew effect of science still persists. The dramatic increase of research activity is at least partially responsible for this. For example in 2015 about twice as many articles were indexed in PubMed, as in 2005. Since the amount of information is overwhelming, scientists need to go out of their way, and seek unorthodox ways to increase the visibility of their research, The widely used „publish or perish” phrase is now almost obsolescent – without using novel means to stand out of the crowd one can easily publish and perish. Research published by the top dogs of academic publishing is made sure to get the limelight, by promotion through e.g. popular science news sites, accompanying editorials, and influential newsletters. However, less prestigious venues usually don’t have the same resources. Even if you are a really successful scientist, chances are that most of your papers won’t end up in the elite journals. This means that to scientists need to go DIY, take action, and reach out towards their audience - and this is where social networking sites can be game changers. Effective use of social networking services certainly goes beyond posting selfies with posters and blurry images of  the keynote speech. All the different services have their own strengths and weaknesses so finding the best way to your audience requires some experimentation. Twitter for example is selective if not aristocratic, having a handful of key influencers at the top, and a vast number of users with modest followership. So unless you have influential followers to boost your visibility, your tweets will likely to remain unnoticed regardless their quality. However twitter is great for learning how to be succinct – 140 characters really isn’t much after all. In contrast, reddit is more "democratic": find a relevant subreddit for your content, submit, and wait for the collective decision of the community. Only the quality of your submission matters, its irrelevant whether you have just registered or you have a 20-times gilded account with a karma of 1M. But what if your article would be too technical to follow for a broader audience?  Do what the top journals do – write a short perspective piece about it, highlighting the main findings and importance of your study using layman’s terms, give it a expressive title and share it as a blog post (e.g. medium is a good venue for this). Unfortunately, undergrads/grad students are rarely bombarded by requests to deliver keynote speeches at conferences at sunny resorts Thus, junior researchers should embrace alternative ways to connect with other scientists working on their field, and professional networking sites like Researchgate or can be of great help. These sites make it easier to follow the activity of other researchers, share paper, presentation, or raw data, ask/answer technical questions, review papers and preprints, and ask others to scrutinize yours – so all in all interact with your peers, hone your communication skills, and if all goes well establish collaborations. In summary: social networking sites (both academic and of general) offer some much needed leverage for early career scientists, spark collaborations, and can reduce the infamous Matthew effect in science. The scientific community should utilize these non-traditional forms of outreach more actively, which should be reflected by the graduate school curriculum as well.

Laura Roberts

and 1 more

“Honestly, I think you’ll like it!” said my then boyfriend (now husband), when trying to persuade me to join Twitter back in 2011. The baffled, confused expression on my face was followed by “why on Earth would I want to waste my time following celebrities? Who cares what Lady Gaga eats, drinks and wears? It’s not for me.” Famous last words. Like many academics, I was blind to the potential of social media. Yes, you can choose to use it to follow celebrities, TV programmes, amusing memes and your friends & family (nothing wrong with that, I do it too!). But, as an academic, you also stand to gain so much from it if you are willing to invest a little time. When I eventually took the plunge and joined Twitter I was coming into the second year of my PhD and quickly realising the importance of growing my academic network. Of course, I fostered relationships at conferences, but my research budget was tight and international travel limited. My strongest links were, naturally, developing with scientists, in my broad field, in the country I was working in. In the competitive world of academia, I was all too aware that if I wanted to progress my career I needed to expand my horizons. Twitter was a game changer.  Unbeknownst to me there was this invaluable, (quickly growing) online community of fellow scientists. All of a sudden, I was able to connect with researchers across the globe, regardless of geographical location and career stage. Not only that, they were having interesting and valuable conversations, which I was now privy to. I learnt about ground-breaking research and discovered a world of supportive PhD students who shared useful tips on how to survive the early days in the research world. I went from simply listening to conversations, to taking part in them and eventually sharing content which, to my surprise, people found interesting and useful. It took time, but I slowly carved out my small corner of the twittersphere. One where my opinion was sought and where I was known – I was successfully growing that all important network! But I didn’t approach social media exclusively with a ‘what’s in it for me’ attitude. Throughout my PhD, being a researcher, paid to do my work by public funds, I had a strong sense that it was important to give something back. Science forms the basis of so much of our daily lives, yet it goes unnoticed by so many. Social media became the platform where I (and many others) could reach out about my work, about the importance of science in general and about why it is important to communicate it.  Since that fateful conversation back in 2011, not only have I changed my tune about Twitter, I’ve built relationships that now form the basis of a number of working collaborations (past and present). My network of contacts far exceeds anything I might have been able to cultivate otherwise. I draw on these contacts often and sometimes I can even return the favour! On a very personal level, it is heartwarming that I now call some of my followers, friends.  Importantly, the time I invested in nurturing my social media presence and building my network has, and continues to, open many doors.  My work as a science communicator, particularly using social media platforms, slowly got noticed. Since, I have been invited to speak on panels about using social media as an academic, to join a blog network and I’ve been asked to deliver workshops to PhD students on how to use social media in a research context. Above all, had I not pursued science communication using social media and blogging, even when my supervisors weren’t supportive, I wouldn’t have landed my current job.  Things are changing, slowly, but there is (still) hostility towards those in academia who chose to devote, even a small fraction of their time, to outreach via social media (and other forms of outreach too).  Social media is not for all academics. I understand and respect that. Even if you only dabble in it, it requires you to dedicate time to it; time, which you might decide is better spent on other activities. That is ok.  Still, regardless of whether you choose to embrace it or not, social media is a powerful tool that researchers can use to reach out to others less familiar with their subject, as well as make their work open and accessible. It isn’t, or doesn’t have to be (like I once thought and many still do), about what Lady Gaga had for lunch. Just because it’s not your bag, doesn’t mean it is not worthy and valuable.

Nadia I. Awad

and 1 more

They say that life is full of surprises. That is the understatement of the moment, especially as it relates to the integration of social media within our career trajectories.  It is difficult to imagine where I would be in a professional capacity in the absence of social media.  My journey in the world of social media began over four years ago, where I facilitated the development of an educational blog known as Emergency Medicine PharmD, which is aimed at defining the role of the emergency medicine pharmacist. My involvement in the blog has allowed me to unite several passions of mine in one vehicle: research and lifelong learning; writing in both scientific terms and prose in the form of storytelling; and emergency medicine pharmacy. At around the same time, I created a professional Twitter account as a means of disseminating newly published entries from the blog to those who followed me in addition to sharing articles and interesting posts related to the practice of emergency medicine pharmacy.  In serving as associate editor of the blog, having authored over 75 educational entries since its inception, and through my active engagement on Twitter, my contributions within the world of social media has propelled my professional career as an emergency medicine pharmacist in ways that I never thought could ever be remotely possible. I realized early on that social media can be leveraged for research purposes and to date, I have had formal publication of three research papers in the medical literature related to social media and pharmacy. With this, I have also been able to interact with several other individuals within the international community of emergency medicine clinicians and collaborate on blog posts and podcasts on various topics as well as participate in research studies and other such activities. Last year, I joined a team of emergency medicine pharmacists from around the country in producing an online curriculum called the Capsules series, which is focused on creating educational modules related to practical pharmacology for the emergency medicine practitioner. One of my greatest achievements to date has been being elected to serve as incoming chair of the Emergency Medicine Practice and Research Network of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, where I will take the lead on various activities throughout my term on behalf of more than 1,000 members of the network in this national organization. Finally, in their provision of prescriber and patient education related to medication safety, the Food and Drug Administration (yes, THE FDA) cited one of my own blog entries as a featured reference in a recently released drug safety warning. That was the icing on the cake; to have a major federal agency cite my own writing on an education blog in their efforts to enhance medication safety was not only a “mind blown” moment for me, but it also reflects a turning of the tide, demonstrating that our contributions in social media can be influential on the grand scale – and that you never know who may be following your work in these outlets. These opportunities serve as conversation starters of the penultimate question related to social media: “What’s next?”  There is room for improvement in this medium. We need to begin to develop those discussions with folks who may be of the “traditional” mindset, particularly those who may serve on promotion and tenure committees, on the value of social media in professional development in a manner that they can understand and appreciate. No longer should it be conventional to scoff at social media for all of its associations with frivolity and “time wasted”, which has been a traditionally held attitude in the past. As more and more academics, researchers, and clinicians professionally engage in social media, it is also important to recognize the opportunities that arise as a result of their involvement. In addition, social media is not without its shortcomings, not unlike any other medium where information is shared, and one area is in the lax peer review process. There can be any number of methods for conducting peer review, whether it be pre- or post-publication, of material that is open access and available for wider web of readers and users. If this is conducted as a means to enhance the accuracy and quality of information shared within the resource, it may facilitate presentation of the medium in such a way that members of promotion and tenure committees may recognize and value, and perhaps become more receptive in accepting these materials as scholarly activity in the same manner as traditional print publications.  Suffice it to say that social media is indeed here to stay. The window of opportunity in the world of social media is wide, and through these improvements, research and discovery can progress to support and further the work of contributors of this movement.

Cassandra Barrett

and 1 more

Graduate school is notoriously lonely- so I’m on Tinder. And so is the rest of my lab. I’ve seen your profiles, guys! For those unfamiliar, Tinder is a dating app that allows you to very simply browse mates by viewing pictures. You swipe left if you don’t like what you see or right if you do. It’s a social networking site in that it allows you to sort through other people nearby and interact with only those that also swiped right on you. All people, not just grad students apparently, get lonely so Tinder represents a relatively diverse cross section of the population. I’ve met people on Tinder with professions from house painter to software developer to professional clown (swipe left, swipe left!). Now as far as social media goes, it is generally well integrated into my professional life. My advisor is active on twitter, regularly posts on her blog, and encourages us to use online platforms for everything from notebooks to lab organization. We are a modern lab. But this social media communication that we typically practice, such as live tweeting conferences or posting on ResearchGate, ends up being almost exclusively scientist-to-scientist communication. While students should be sure to integrate this sort of communication into their work, most of the world is not populated by scientists. Most people are house painters, software developers, clowns, etc. and my time on Tinder has taught me how utterly incompetent we are at communicating our work with them. As a bioengineer with an emphasis on genetic manipulation, I tend to get a pretty formulaic response from new people. “Oh wow, bioengineering. Miss smarty pants over here.” There’s a certain level of pedantic shock and surprise when you’re young, blonde, female and a PhD student in STEM. This is usually followed by some joke, always pertaining to possible nefarious activities that I might be undertaking in the lab. “What kind of super virus are you cooking up?” “Resurrect any dinosaurs lately?” When I first started talking to people on dating apps about my career, I was shocked by how many assumed I was getting a PhD in Evil. Most people go into my field with the intention of curing cancer, not causing vast global plagues. But our portrayal of scientists in pop culture as generally a little whacked in the head, and superstitious fears of GMOs explain a lot of this. Many people have no picture of what a scientist, bioengineer, or other STEM professional looks like outside of the general stereotype of an old white man with crazy hair. We have done a terrible job showing non-STEM folks that we can be women, people of color, queer, etc. And we have failed in communicating the motives behind our work to them. Tinder has put me into contact with more diverse groups of people than any other social media platform. My list of Facebook friends and Twitter followers is full of scientists like me, but I swipe right on people from all walks of life. Over time, I’ve developed an elevator speech for my work that I can give to non-scientists. I’ve figured out ways to define complicated topics like horizontal gene transfer in metaphors that make sense to a broader audience, ie that bacteria swap genes like Pokemon cards. I’ve become able to talk about complex biological engineering with people who haven’t taken biology since the eighth grade. And these new skills from late night chats and many, many first dates, have improved my science communication skills vastly. I have translated them into speaking clearly with possible funding agencies, improving my K-12 outreach, and describing my work to broader media outlets. But I shouldn’t have had to learn this through Tinder. If we ever hope to see strong funding for science, public understanding, science-conscious policy making, and true diversity in science, we need to shift our communication style. We need to learn in the course of our studies how to communicate outside of our special little STEM club. There is a world of house painters, software developers, and clowns out there that is curious but hopelessly uninformed. We’re the experts and the onus is on us to be able to keep them in the loop by including them in our target audience for communication. We have the luxury of knowing how to find answers in databases, understand primary literature, and think critically about data. Joe from Tinder never learned this stuff. It’s our job to make sure that when we publish a paper, we blog about it in a way he can understand and that is still accurate. It’s on us to ensure that this makes it to media outlets that he uses. And it’s our job to make sure that when we match with him on Tinder, we know what to say.