Last year, 14 stem cell biologists from outside the US complained to journal editors that their papers were being sabotaged in the peer review process, resulting in delays or rejections. A provocative claim — but was it true?
ScienceWriters meeting coverage
A growing share of science news – particularly online – is produced with funding from foundations, industry and government. For science journalism, this reality raises a bundle of ethical questions: How much disclosure is enough? Is it possible to have a meaningful editorial “firewall” at an organization that gets all its money from a single funder? And are these new content sources contributing to the decline of in-house coverage of science at old-line media organizations?
"Social tools are a way to answer the phone for your readers," said Mark Coatney, director/media evangelist at tumblr. Its value is in interaction with your reader.
Annie Paul, author of Origins: How the Nine Months Before Birth Shape the Rest of Our Lives, did not take the usual, ho-hum road to pen her book. “I went to extreme measures,” she jokes. “I got pregnant.”
Overheard last night from a sleeping science writer who wishes to remain anonymous: "Mumble mumble Twitter mumble."
It’s all about the audience. This morning’s panel “Your next book will be a pixel: Navigating e-books and e-rights” emphasized the importance of engaging with your readers both before and after the publication process
From China to Chile, great science stories happen all over the world. Scientists have long been collaborating with their colleagues across international borders, and the World Federation of Science Journalists is helping science
There are many ways to get statistics wrong, and we learned about some of them from the speakers at the 'Get the numbers right: A workshop on reporting statistics' session. They also offered advice on how journalists could avoid the common mistakes and treat statistics right. Clearly this is a topic that many people care about, judging by how packed the room was.
Panelists tackling solutions to the collapse of science literacy and the collapse of science journalism differed radically on how to get the public interested in science and reading about it.
If you had $1 to spend on improving science literacy in America, how would you spend it? That was the question posed by Rick Borchelt, an organizer of today's Civics of science session, to panelists Carolyn L. Funk, Jon Miller, and Chris Mooney.