Writing in Columbia Journalism Review, Declan Fahy recaps notable cases such as Diederick Stapel's serial data fabrication and suggests ways for journalists to cover scientific misconduct better by focusing on broader trends more than individual cases: "Particular scientific scandals make compelling stories. But reporters can paint a bigger picture of the scientific enterprise, revealing, rather than obscuring, the social environment in which scientists work."
Science writing news
As Congress reviews treatment of conservative groups seeking non-profit tax status, journalism organizations face similar hurdles with little public attention: "This spring, a consortium of respected philanthropic groups, headed by the Council on Foundations and the Knight Foundation, found that the IRS appears to be slow-walking the applications for tax-exempt status by journalism groups emerging to fill the void left by the dramatic contraction of the news media."
It's simple, Ed Yong writes. Just talk about a paper's strengths and weaknesses, and put it in context, and above all speak in plain English: "Just bear in mind that if something is riddled with jargon, I can paraphrase it but I can’t really quote it. That’s a little riskier for you, because maybe I might inadvertently misinterpret something you say. It’s also less good for me. I want to put your words in quote marks because it can really brighten up a piece."
You know that saying about a kid in a candy store? Authors in bookstores aren't much different. Don't worry, though, Rebecca Makkai offers advice for navigating the aisles: "March to your alphabetical shelf. If you've done this enough, you know where your book should be just by scanning for the landmarks. You're always about two inches to the left of the bestseller with the trippy yellow spine, and a few inches to the right of the Pulitzer winner with the naked sailor."
Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus, who write the Retraction Watch blog, have a few things to say about journal editors who stonewall their questions about retracted papers: "Many retraction notices have about as much to say as a mime at a wallflower convention. Anyone hoping to find out the reason for the retraction – was it misconduct, for example, or just honest error? – will be up the proverbial creek without a paddle." That's bad for science, Oransky and Marcus argue.
In December 2003, after an explosion of feverish work, NCI staff members stood on the threshold of launching a weekly newsletter that would cover the entire field of cancer research. The publication they designed — ultimately named the NCI Cancer Bulletin — was neither the largest nor the most controversial of projects launched by then-director Andrew von Eschenbach. The history of the Bulletin — which died with a whimper after nine years of operation — describes an idea gone amok.
"If your idea of organized is smacking Post-it notes all over your computer, you’ll quickly discover you need a better way," Sue Burzynski Bullard writes as she shares her favorite tools for organizing her work. Google Calendar gets top billing, unsurprisingly, and Dropbox gets a mention, but there's also a web-based to-do list called "Remember the Milk," a virtual bulletin board called "NoteApp," and a pair of social bookmarking tools, "Diigo" and "Delicious."
Here's one from the "Let's eat Grandma" division: Joshua Yearsley offers three examples and four more tips on proper adverb placement: "When used correctly, adverbs provide key pieces of information. They can be the difference between the reader being totally lost and being along for the ride. However, one very common error in academic writing is improper placement adverbs and adverbial phrases." One tip: "If you don’t need an adverb/adverbial phrase, don’t use one."
Journalists now have to assume that their government will spy on them and their sources, Dan Gillmor argues: "They will have to take many more precautions as they do their work — especially when it comes to the absolutely essential work of finding government whistleblowers. The alternative is being almost entirely neutered, because no whistleblower in his or her right mind today should have much trust in journalists' ability to prevent discovery."