Hi All,
This story and discussion has reminded me about something that I mull over every few months:
In discussions about where the hyperbole enters a media story, the focus always appears to sit with the PR officer or the journalist. There never seems to be any investigation into the paper itself. New researchers are taught that they must include something about the importance/potential implications of their work and, in order to help with acceptance, there must be a pressure to talk this up. I am sure that some peer reviewers will attempt to filter this out, but I have read many papers that make claims for their work that seem to be beyond a reasonable justification. How much does (do others think that) this conrtibutes to the exaggerated claims that end up appearing in the media?
Bruce
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail -- [include hyphens]
2. To resume email from the list, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
set psci-com mail -- [include hyphens]
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com -- [include hyphens]
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive, can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk
6. To contact the Psci-com list owner, please send an email to mailto:[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
|