bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Faulkes, Z.

Publications and source records attributed to Faulkes, Z..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Trends in hoaxes of academic communication

Academic journals use peer review to weed out false information, but peer review and other editorial processes are normally confidential. Therefore, individuals sometimes create hoaxes to test whether editorial processes are as robust as they are claimed, or whether they are done at all. This article tracks the occurrence of hoaxes aimed at scholarly publishers and academic conferences since 2000. Since 2009, successful hoaxes usually appeared at a year of one or more a year, usually motivated by academics or journalists exposing so-called "predatory" journals. The apparent rise in the number of hoaxes reflects a lack of transparency in editorial processes at both legitimate and "predatory" journals. Reaction of academic communities to hoaxes varies widely depending on the perceived intent of the target of the hoaxes and whether the hoax demonstrates what the hoaxer claims.

scientific communication and education↗

Uninterpretable graphs at a scientific conference

Comparing averages requires knowing sample variation, which can be shown visually using a bar graph with error bars or a box plot. Because error bars and box plots can show different measures, they must be labelled to be interpretable. Of graphs of averages shown at a scientific conference in 2020, 87.5% of graphs did not contain enough information on the slide to interpret them. The only graphs that were fully interpretable (12.5%) were bar graphs. By comparison, 92% of graphs of averages published in a journal in the same field contained enough information to interpret them. While conferences are not and should not be as stringent about data presentation as journals, that a statistical value as simple as an average are not clearly presented suggests graphs are created by rote.

scientific communication and education↗

When crayfish make news, headlines are correct but still misleading

Crayfish are well known to many but not often newsworthy, so cases where crayfish are covered in international news provide an example of how science journalism covers a news story about basic research. Headlines have a disproportionately large influence on peoples factual knowledge and perceptions of stories covered in media. I tracked online media coverage of one scientific paper involving marbled crayfish and analyzed the headlines used by the articles. Articles were framed as "news," but almost no headlines contained "new" facts that first appeared in the target scientific paper. The fact that appeared in the most headlines (that marbled crayfish reproduce by cloning) was over a decade old. Headlines misled readers into thinking a "breakthrough" was made by one team, rather than showing incremental advances by many teams of researchers over years.

scientific communication and education↗