tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post1638119408398385116..comments2024-02-28T02:22:20.886-08:00Comments on homunculus: Should you send the scientist your draft article?Philip Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09986655706443117158noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-17675721288366858592020-12-22T16:38:58.578-08:002020-12-22T16:38:58.578-08:00HERBAL DR EMU WHO PREPARE HERBAL MEDICINE TO CURE ...HERBAL DR EMU WHO PREPARE HERBAL MEDICINE TO CURE ALL KINDS OF DISEASES INCLUDING HERPES DISEASE. <br /> I have been battling this Herpes disease for almost 3 years now....I tried all possible means to get cure from my Herpes Disease but all to be in vain until i saw a post in a health forum about a herbal Dr Emu who prepare herbal medicine to cure all kind of diseases including Herpes Disease, at first i doubted if it was real but decided to give it a try...when i contact Dr Emu via his email (emutemple@gmail.com) write him and reply me explain how the process work so after ordering for the medicine I got it within 3/4 working days through DHL Delivery and I took it according to the way Dr Emu instructed, I was so happy after 2 week I took the medicine there was very big change in my health when I was done with the process I go for test, I found out I am negative...Herpes patients should also get in touch with this herbalist Dr Emu to get rid of these Herpes Virus forever his whatsapp number +2347012841542.Darlene Tregerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328404164927994387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-30234587360123613462020-11-02T23:15:40.453-08:002020-11-02T23:15:40.453-08:00I'm someone who has lived a life seemingly in ...I'm someone who has lived a life seemingly in the background, I must say this final indignity I have suffered almost too much to endure. You see, I have been sickly and weak since the day I was born and doomed to go through all my life a weakling. I seemed to have always suffered from one illness or another and could never play with the other children as I so desperately wanted to. Mother always made such a big fuss over me, also, making the situation worse as the other boys teased me mercilessly after they saw it. I was browsing the internet searching on how i could be transformed into a powerful when i came across the email of a man named Lord Mark. who was a VAMPIRE so I told him that I has always dreamed of becoming a VAMPIRES, All i did was just to follow the procedure that i was been told, and i bet you that procedure I took change my entire life to something i ever desire, freedom, sickness free, pains free, fame, influence, connections and even more that i can. Thanks to Lord Mark. Do you want a life full of interesting things? Do you want to have power and influence over others? To be charming and desirable? To have wealth, health, and longevity? contact the vampires creed today via email: Vampirelord7878@gmail.comAlandrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05564958616469735697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-84002697839060069242018-08-07T00:15:59.071-07:002018-08-07T00:15:59.071-07:00qiu qiu online
domino qiu qiu
daftar poker onlin...<a href="http://www.pokerking333.com/" rel="nofollow"><strong>qiu qiu online</strong></a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.pokerking333.com/" rel="nofollow"><strong>domino qiu qiu</strong></a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.pokerking333.com/register.php" rel="nofollow"><strong>daftar poker online</strong></a>carrissa saputrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11720877695565002493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-82307386668431968632018-06-14T09:38:15.045-07:002018-06-14T09:38:15.045-07:00I came across such a large quantity of fascinating...I came across such a large quantity of fascinating stuff in your online journal particularly its discourse. From the huge levels of remarks on your articles, I figure I am not in the slightest the only person having all of the pleasure here! keep doing awesome…<a href="http://shnkafor-scientific-articles.com/services.html" rel="nofollow">proofread scientific materials</a><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05704159231627046186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-58896429687620606592018-03-01T13:40:40.915-08:002018-03-01T13:40:40.915-08:00Amy, these are great points - thanks so much. I gu...Amy, these are great points - thanks so much. I guess I'd try to use judgement about when scientists are making valid points and when they're just being pedantic or stuck in their disciplinary box - but it's not always easy, and as you say, time is often short. I certainly wouldn't consider it a duty to keep the scientists happy! I reckon we need both quick news and longform in science reporting, and the former is bound to have to cut more corners, as in any journalism. Philip Ballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09986655706443117158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-84485411014197304912018-02-19T15:10:21.013-08:002018-02-19T15:10:21.013-08:00Philip, I'm writing a piece for Undark about t...Philip, I'm writing a piece for Undark about the recent Twitter poll and subsequent debate over whether journalists should show scientists their quotes and/or drafts before publication. Would you be open to chatting with me about your experience and opinion on the matter?Danahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06147275885184646753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-41987050795249428842018-02-15T10:35:24.957-08:002018-02-15T10:35:24.957-08:00(2/2)
Our university absolutely wants scientists...(2/2) <br /><br />Our university absolutely wants scientists talking to journalists, but the institutional media training I've seen is aimed at local-news pitches, useful mainly in putting across to scientists how few words they'll have, how very simple the story has to be, how little the reporters are likely to know, and how much goggling at kit there's going to be. At some point I'll probably put something together about recognizing what kinds of stories can be put across well that way, and what stories belong to other forms and media. <br /><br />I appreciate the point of having a no-run-by policy when you're a large, fast-moving news organization, but I suspect that a landscape like that further polarizes scientific communities -- scientists comfortable with sci comm and journalists are better able to defend themselves and steer their stories, becoming media-friendly, and those who aren't wind up feeling awfully banged around and maybe disinclined to try it again, even as their institutions push them to. I know this is not what publishers or institutional marketing divisions want to hear, but maybe the answer here is that science journalism ought to consider adapting to science, rather than the other way round, and slowing down. Going at longform pace, or even at book pace, also lets you avoid the problem of standing two inches from a pointillist painting, which sounds to me like a happy thing for readers.Amy Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07001791173242631714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-62509041218131880512018-02-15T10:35:11.392-08:002018-02-15T10:35:11.392-08:00Part of my job involves being a slice between univ...Part of my job involves being a slice between university chemists and journalists, university-news and otherwise. Bidirectional prep and translation. <br /><br />There's a problem with fact-checking by running descriptions and explanations past a scientist (which seems the obvious and sensible thing to do) when the scientist isn't terribly media-savvy and doesn't know what the journalist's job is, so doesn't have a sense of the precision/accuracy tradeoff in translating things for broader consumption. From their perspective, the world is Disciplinary Journal World, so every translation gets struck down as inaccurate, the analogies are whittled away to nubs, and everything's replaced with paper language -- and then they're bothered (usually over something no one else would notice) when the story still doesn't come out sounding like it belongs in Journal of Sub-Subdiscipline B. My experience is that while most scientists will come around given enough time and trust, and accept that things will necessarily go out of focus as you try to talk to a broader audience about the work (also that no, most people really don't know what X is), it takes time to build the trust and find the limits of that scientist's tolerance. More time than someone on tight deadline likely has. (Another problem: recognition of the importance of story, as opposed to bare explanation. I had an episode once in which a scientist and I were working on a short NPR piece about his Science paper, and I'd put story in, and he'd take it out, and we went around like that a few times before I realized that the story was an irrelevance to him, and that I'd have to explain why it was important there. Happily, he was game and we'd built a lot of trust, so explaining wasn't expensive.)<br /><br />So part of the question is also about *which scientists* you're going to for the run-by -- is it someone who understands what you're doing, who's a sort of partner in sci comm? And then how are you going to talk with a less savvy colleague who's heard that you give that other person copy to look over, and that you accept their changes?<br /><br />One of the things I've been doing, intermittently, is to encourage and help the chemists (incl. grad students) I work with to develop their own news-ready analogies and pocket explanations, even when there aren't any journalists emailing. Just as a matter of course: you're writing up something new, how would you explain it to someone who's not a scientist, or not a chemist? Some of them are very good at it, and a nice byproduct's that what's essentially science writing starts turning up in grant proposals, especially private/foundation proposals, where it's usually very well received. While being handed the prose like that might be restrictive for a really good science writer, on the whole the response from journalists has been gratitude. (1/2)Amy Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07001791173242631714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-18653292888186623542018-02-05T10:06:05.440-08:002018-02-05T10:06:05.440-08:00I'm with Phil and Andy on this. I don't se...I'm with Phil and Andy on this. I don't see the problem with sending a draft to check quotes and accuracy of scientific descriptions. The articles I'm writing are mostly highlight pieces where the aim is to translate some pretty complex science for a more general audience. And I regard that more as a fact checking process - they certainly don't get full copy approval (I would overrule any attempt to change something that wasn't a factual error).<br /><br />I agree it would be different if the article was of a critical nature. And if there were quotes from another source (critical or otherwise) I'd likely leave them out of this process. The only reason I do this by sending a draft rather than on the phone is that it's easier than trying to schedule a call with busy people (who may also be in a different time zone).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11766515620233424615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-3244467452022257432018-02-05T09:51:08.399-08:002018-02-05T09:51:08.399-08:00Hi Phil (and colleagues),
I don't know why I ...Hi Phil (and colleagues),<br /><br />I don't know why I always find this subject endlessly fascinating, so here's a bit of stream of consciousness (though more from the perspective of an editor).<br /><br />Policies are important so that both writer and source/interviewee know the boundaries. This did not need to be the case so much in the past but is now needed as more scientists begin to be represented by their universities' and government department communications and strategy teams. What was once more common in large companies is now pretty widespread in the public sector too. <br /><br />I was recently at a small event at the Broad Institute at MIT. After we did a round of introductions it occurred to me that the numbers of in-house communications/impact/strategy staff sitting in the periphery of the room were almost as many as the journalists sitting around the table. In some respects that is understandable, as the Broad is potentially sitting on a lot of lolly and it is entirely in its interests to influence the message. I would totally do the same were I in their position.<br /><br />Also, scientists in these institutions are encouraged to take media training and can be advised in these courses not to deal directly with journalists (especially with journalists they don't know). <br /><br />As writers and journalists who talk to scientists, we are essentially dealing with employees of large organisations now. Hence I've found that creating a fairly tight policy and explaining it up front is important so everyone knows where they stand. <br /><br />Inspite of this, I have lost count the number of misunderstandings, arguments, cross words etc that can quickly happen given the tight deadlines for daily and weekly news and the numbers of folks involved. <br /><br />I accept that one policy for every type of article can end up becoming a blunt instrument. Checking technical accuracy on a single source story is very different to checking the accuracy of competing claims to a discovery or invention. <br /><br />But once you've set the policy, as an editor/editorial team you have every right to interpret it according to the merits of the situation.<br /> <br />I think we can all agree that discretion is everything!<br /><br />Best wishes, Ehsan <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-38016875343586042112018-02-05T09:29:04.315-08:002018-02-05T09:29:04.315-08:00I wrote something this morning but I think it may ...I wrote something this morning but I think it may have been eaten by internet gremlins. So, my perspective as a New Scientist editor:<br /><br />There are two fairly practical reasons for not sharing copy which you've not really touched on. The first is simply time: sending copy to a scientist, after it has been written, edited and subbed (and why would you bother before?) adds yet another stage, introducing a delay that is rarely worth it when it comes to news stories.<br /><br />The second is, while I may trust New Scientist staffers to stand up to attempts to change their copy, I'd be less confident that all freelancers, some I will know better than others, can do the same. A blanket rule against sharing copy helps protect those freelancers, particular people who are just starting out and may not have the confidence to face off with a source. After all, they can always blame the evil editor.<br /><br />That said, I'm very happy to run an analogy for a tricky concept by a researcher, though normally I'd do this on the phone and paraphrasing, rather than sending copy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13789733448919064037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-32312361031507576702018-02-05T06:27:48.190-08:002018-02-05T06:27:48.190-08:00Emily,
Thanks so much - this is really useful to k...Emily,<br />Thanks so much - this is really useful to know. We're mostly in complete agreement: yes, writing on science politics/policy, misconduct and controversies undoubtedly creates situations where it would be highly advisable not to send any copy to sources. And I can see why some science publications would implement a blanket policy for that reason, so that the rules are clear. But in my experience that could well act to the detriment of accuracy of much straightforward science reporting, which describes much of what I do. So I'd prefer the writer to be allowed some discretion.<br />As for not wanting to anger a valuable source, or risking being sued - well, won't both those things happen anyway if the comments are published without the source seeing them first? And personally, if one of my sources were going to get bolshy about some unreasonable (in my view) request for a change, I would have no worries about losing their good will as a source.<br />Agreed that Physics Focus is a grey area!<br />And yes, I'm prepared to do as I'm told by editors too! But I'm a bit concerned that, as this approach becomes more and more the standard practice, there may be unsufficient debate about the pros and cons - it could end up as just "That's bad journalism!"<br /><br />Andy: "If we don't stand up to our sources, we're not doing our job." Absolutely. My preference would be to confront them if they are being unreasonable and manipulative, not to duck the issue by avoiding it. Though I agree it gets tough if they start getting litigious...<br /><br />Peter: That's a good scheme. But I'm not sure how, short of telling them exactly how you're going to describe the work, you can then be sure that your technical explanations are going to be correct (which is a different matter from the accuracy of quotes). That's the aspect I want them to check.Philip Ballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09986655706443117158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-18757744877635419372018-02-05T04:40:44.229-08:002018-02-05T04:40:44.229-08:00I don't write much nowadays but I found the fo...I don't write much nowadays but I found the following approach useful when I was at Physics World and often interviewed people over the phone:<br />1) Type up the notes of the interview straight away, ideally in the form of two or three paragraphs that could be dropped into the story, including facts (such as names and numbers), direct quotations, and other relevant information<br />2 Email the notes to the interviewee, asking him/her to send corrections/comments by a deadline. This also allows you to send any follow-up questions that you didn't ask over the phone<br />3) Write the article on the basis of these notes, which have been fact-checked already. I did not send a draft of the whole article to anyone before publication.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17776573145256533998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-70855257127992230572018-02-05T00:14:56.888-08:002018-02-05T00:14:56.888-08:00I agree with you Phil. There are a lot of practica...I agree with you Phil. There are a lot of practical advantages in terms of accuracy, and I do often send pieces to sources to check for accuracy, unless my editors specifically tell me not to. Interesting that Mika McKinnon sees it as getting scientists to do free work - most of my sources are keen to do this kind of thing. But also not making it a blanket thing is sensible too - for example sometimes there's no point, if it's a drug company or government agency, they won't add anything further. On the matter of whether things get legal - don't you actually have an ethical responsibility to show them, or at least inform them, if you're publishing something that might provoke that kind of response to give them a right of reply? I believe the key is to show them at the last minute so they don't have the chance to bring out an injunction - if that were ever to happen in the scientific field. I could go on and on, and my thoughts aren't as well honed as yours, but one final point. On the subject of whether a journalist can stand up against changes, going to look at ethics codes has made me notice point of the NUJ ethics code (https://www.nuj.org.uk/about/nuj-code/): <br />[A journalist] Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge. <br />So if we don't stand up to our sources, we're not doing our job. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02723437600664270099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-71798539429888472522018-02-04T19:51:56.303-08:002018-02-04T19:51:56.303-08:00The main issue with your practice, for me, is the ...The main issue with your practice, for me, is the "slippery slope" problem. Yes, what you're doing is probably not dramatically affecting the content of your articles (aside from fixing inaccuracies). But there are journalists for whom that would matter: those that cover science politics or scientific misconduct, for example. Then it becomes necessary to start drawing lines: it's okay to share copy on this type of story, but not that one. Or this reporter can share copy but not that one. Same goes for particularly controversial subjects, and that line is even harder to draw. So that's why a lot of outlets just have a policy that is straightforward: no sharing of copy at all. It makes sense to me why publications want to do that, or why individual writers choose to do that. <br /><br />You make the point that the journalist can always say, "no, I will not make that change that you have requested." But then there is always the temptation not to anger a valuable source, or other complications that can lead to changing the story. I have heard of cases of science journalists sending copy to sources who then got angry, and threatened to sue if their work was described as written. That leaves the journalist's outlet in a difficult position that can end up with the story getting killed.<br /><br />I'm not sure Physics Focus is a good example, as in my opinion, it is not strictly journalism. It is published by APS to promote APS papers. Although it is also certainly intended to be useful to its readers, you wouldn't see a full-on takedown of a PRL paper there. (Although there is outside comment that is sometimes a bit negative. Maybe that makes it borderline.)<br /><br />Finally, I will also note that almost every editor I've spoken with about this has told me not to send copy to sources. I've heard this over and over again, enough that I got the sense that this really is a norm of the profession. (Also I'd like to remain employed and my employer tells me not to send stories to sources.)<br /><br />Anyway, I'm glad you wrote this because scientists who want me to send them my articles sometimes tell me of other science journalists who agree to do so and I always wondered who these mystery journalists were and what their arguments were.Emilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18019076015897596151noreply@blogger.com