r/science: Challenges and Opportunities in Online Science Communication

Online discussion websites, such as Reddit's r/science forum, have the potential to foster science communication between researchers and the general public. However, little is known about who participates, what is discussed, and whether such websites are successful in achieving meaningful science discussions. To find out, we conducted a mixed-methods study analyzing 11,859 r/science posts and conducting interviews with 18 community members. Our results show that r/science facilitates rich information exchange and that the comments section provides a unique science communication document that guides engagement with scientific research. However, this community-sourced science communication comes largely from a knowledgeable public. We conclude with design suggestions for a number of critical problems that we uncovered: addressing the problem of topic newsworthiness and balancing broader participation and rigor.

[1]  Nicole C. Krämer,et al.  Who’s right: The author or the audience? Effects of user comments and ratings on the perception of online science articles , 2016 .

[2]  Ricardo A. Daziano,et al.  The Proof is in the Picture: The Influence of Imagery and Experience in Perceptions of Hurricane Messaging , 2017 .

[3]  Marzena Świgoń.  Knowledge sharing practices in informal scholarly communication amongst academics in Poland , 2017 .

[4]  Jason Priem,et al.  How and why scholars cite on Twitter , 2010, ASIST.

[5]  Jennifer Preece,et al.  Non-public and public online community participation: Needs, attitudes and behavior , 2006, Electron. Commer. Res..

[6]  Janice L. Krieger,et al.  Translating Science , 2017 .

[7]  Steven Miller,et al.  Public understanding of science at the crossroads , 2001 .

[8]  Tim Weninger,et al.  Consumers and Curators: Browsing and Voting Patterns on Reddit , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems.

[9]  Kurta Obitza.  Knowledge sharing practices in informal scholarly communication amongst academics in Poland , 2017 .

[10]  Ashley Rose Mehlenbacher,et al.  Crowdfunding Science: Exigencies and Strategies in an Emerging Genre of Science Communication , 2017 .

[11]  Katharina Reinecke,et al.  The Exchange in StackExchange , 2018, Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact..

[12]  Aaron Halfaker,et al.  Wikipedians are born, not made: a study of power editors on Wikipedia , 2009, GROUP.

[13]  Masakazu Fujimoto,et al.  The active lurker: influence of an in-house online community on its outside environment , 2003, GROUP.

[14]  Holly M. Bik,et al.  An Introduction to Social Media for Scientists , 2013, PLoS biology.

[15]  J. Durant,et al.  The public understanding of science , 1989, Nature.

[16]  Luke Goode,et al.  Social news, citizen journalism and democracy , 2009, New Media Soc..

[17]  Kate Starbird,et al.  Rumors, False Flags, and Digital Vigilantes: Misinformation on Twitter after the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing , 2014 .

[18]  Jane B. Singer,et al.  User-generated visibility: Secondary gatekeeping in a shared media space , 2014, New Media Soc..

[19]  Julie Doyle,et al.  Citizen voices: Performing public participation in science and environment communication , 2012 .

[20]  Chris Parnin,et al.  "We Don't Do That Here": How Collaborative Editing with Mentors Improves Engagement in Social Q&A Communities , 2018, CHI.

[21]  John C. Besley,et al.  Qualitative Interviews With Science Communication Trainers About Communication Objectives and Goals , 2016 .

[22]  Belinda Cridge,et al.  Organisational culture and its role in developing a sustainable science communication platform , 2017 .

[23]  Stephan Lewandowsky,et al.  Motivated Rejection of Science , 2016 .

[24]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[25]  Scott R. Klemmer,et al.  Gut Instinct: Creating Scientific Theories with Online Learners , 2017, CHI.

[26]  Scott R. Klemmer,et al.  Docent: transforming personal intuitions to scientific hypotheses through content learning and process training , 2018, L@S.

[27]  C. Lintott,et al.  Galaxy Zoo: Motivations of Citizen Scientists , 2008, 1303.6886.

[28]  D. Kahan.  'Ordinary Science Intelligence': A Science-Comprehension Measure for Study of Risk and Science Communication, with Notes on Evolution and Climate Change , 2014 .

[29]  Wai-Tat Fu,et al.  #Snowden: Understanding Biases Introduced by Behavioral Differences of Opinion Groups on Social Media , 2016, CHI.

[30]  Amin Saberi,et al.  Creating Crowdsourced Research Talks at Scale , 2018, WWW.

[31]  Pontus Plavén-Sigray,et al.  The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time , 2017, bioRxiv.

[32]  Oded Nov,et al.  Gender differences in Wikipedia editing , 2011, Int. Sym. Wikis.

[33]  Mathieu Ranger,et al.  ‘The kind of mildly curious sort of science interested person like me’: Science bloggers’ practices relating to audience recruitment , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[34]  Isabel Meirelles,et al.  Visualizing Computational Social Science , 2015 .

[35]  Susan Stocklmayer,et al.  Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition , 2003 .

[36]  Anne E. Lincoln,et al.  How Academic Biologists and Physicists View Science Outreach , 2012, PloS one.

[37]  David R. Gruber.  Three Forms of Neurorealism: Explaining the Persistence of the “Uncritically Real” in Popular Neuroscience News , 2017 .

[38]  Dustin J. Welbourne,et al.  Science communication on YouTube: Factors that affect channel and video popularity , 2016, Public understanding of science.

[39]  Debbie Treise,et al.  Advancing Science Communication , 2002 .

[40]  Samer Faraj,et al.  Emergence of Power Laws in Online Communities: The Role of Social Mechanisms and Preferential Attachment , 2014, MIS Q..

[41]  Lars Guenther,et al.  Scientific evidence and mass media: Investigating the journalistic intention to represent scientific uncertainty , 2016, Public understanding of science.

[42]  Matthias Egger,et al.  What is newsworthy? Longitudinal study of the reporting of medical research in two British newspapers , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[43]  J. Nathan Matias,et al.  Caveat emptor, computational social science: Large-scale missing data in a widely-published Reddit corpus , 2018, PloS one.

[44]  Aaron Drummond,et al.  Enhancing endorsement of scientific inquiry increases support for pro-environment policies , 2016, Royal Society Open Science.

[45]  Nazareno Andrade,et al.  Contributor profiles, their dynamics, and their importance in five q&a sites , 2013, CSCW.

[46]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[47]  Bryan A. Pendleton,et al.  Power of the Few vs. Wisdom of the Crowd: Wikipedia and the Rise of the Bourgeoisie , 2006 .

[48]  Alex Leavitt,et al.  Upvoting hurricane Sandy: event-based news production processes on a social news site , 2014, CHI.

[49]  Jason Chilvers,et al.  Sustainable participation? Mapping out and reflecting on the field of public dialogue on science and technology - Summary Report , 2010 .

[50]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  Bringing values and deliberation to science communication , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[51]  Stephen L Macknik,et al.  Opinion: Finding the plot in science storytelling in hopes of enhancing science communication , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[52]  Bill Tomlinson,et al.  Negabehaviors and Environmental Sustainability , 2011 .

[53]  Katharina Reinecke,et al.  Participation Differences in Q&A Sites Across Countries: Opportunities for Cultural Adaptation , 2016, NordiCHI.

[54]  Bethan J. Davies,et al.  Correspondence Analysis of www.AntarcticGlaciers.org as a tool for online science communication , 2014 .

[55]  Vincent R. Racaniello,et al.  Scientists: Engage the Public! , 2015, mBio.

[56]  Pamela J. Shoemaker,et al.  Individual and Routine Forces in Gatekeeping , 2001 .

[57]  Danna Zhou,et al.  d. , 1934, Microbial pathogenesis.