Seeing it all at once with infographics

I've had a busy couple of weeks, and it seems I'm just over the hump today. For someone such as me, used to dealing with a cat and not much more, attending conferences —even if virtually— is quite exhausting. But it's been worth it. I've learned a lot and got to know wonderful humans.  

Dr Ana Persic is Programme Specialist for Science Technology and Innovation Policies and Open Science at the UNESCO Headquarters. She gave a very detailed and engaging presentation on what is open science.

 According to the recommendation produced by UNESCO,

This is all very well and good (really... it is!), but nobody would pay attention to it. Do you know how the audience felt attracted? With infographics.👇

If you say that the content is the same, you'd be wrong. Although it's the same text, this visual representation provides a stronger storytelling structure for a summary. And here, at Storytelling for Science, we really like those!

This infographic also displays the other characteristics of an effective tool, which are presenting most of the information on short texts or topics, and fitting on a single page, that is then incorporated inside a more extensive text document.

This is a wonderful way to promote the concept of open science, through dissemination via slides, posters, and handouts.

This is quite a feat, to introduce design elements and concepts in an otherwise heavily technical text. And I hear you ask: "We already need to master so much whilst doing research, do we really need to learn design as well?" 

No. Not really. The same concept, to produce something that is visually striking and promotes audience engagement, can be done at a far more modest scale. Just let your imagination loose, and have fun!

Kamoun, Sophien. (2021, November 21). Don't perish! A step by step guide to writing a scientific paper. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5716816





Comments

  1. Monica Machera3 October 2023 at 12:20

    This was visually appealing and I can see the difference.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Leave a comment!

How to spot fake reviewers: a beginner's guide

Image
For those unfamiliar with or new to academic publishing, peer review manipulation is hard to spot. This is mainly because most peer review reports are still confidential documents that stay buried deep in academic journal's editorial offices. As long as this continues to be the default, recognising good and bad peer reviews is difficult enough... now we have to worry about fake peer review as well?! 😒 Well, yes. Yes, we do. The peer review process in academic publishing is unlike any other. The style and content of a manuscript are criticized, as are the thought processes that birthed it. Everything from word choice to significance of the research focus is under scrutiny. In traditional peer review formats, reviewers recommend that manuscripts be accepted or rejected. This much power may make some less scrupulous people guiddy... or yearning to rig the system. The refereeing work that is supposed to be one of the garantors of research integrity is itself highly susceptible to ma
Read more

Auditing published papers (part I)

Image
After they have been published, I audit research papers.  Image by @freepik Why? How does that work? 😕 A new revised version of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI) has been produced by Allea , and recognised by the European Commission, one of the world's largest research funding bodies. This revision focuses on a heightened awareness of issues pertaining to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion ( EDI ), but also the General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR ), and even Open Science . I know.. too much legal speak, too many acronyms... 😬 So, let me sum it up for you. 🔊 All institutions, organizations, and individuals that engage in or interact with research must always abide by the principles of: Honesty Respect   Reliability   Accountability  Simple enough, right? Humm.. I analyse papers that have been flagged as "of concern". 😟 The issues I most commonly see have to do with lack of funding or data availability statements, inappropriate citati
Read more

IMHO: why open science should adopt double anonymous peer review

Image
Let's get opinionated... Peer review is still the cornerstone of quality research. This has been repeated by so many during #PeerReviewWeek2023 , it almost lost its meaning to me. I participated in this conversation wholeheartedly, as a freelancer with a variety of roles, from content review to integrity audits.  I’m no longer in academia, but I did my stint there: it’s hard to imagine that many PhD students and postdocs get excited by performing their first peer review. It often results from an invitation trickle-down and, although it can be regarded as a learning opportunity, peer review is hard, time-consuming, unpaid, and often unrecognized work. Open participation is often regarded by researchers as the fairer, more constructive and productive process, leading to improvement in the quality of the finished version of the works. This is the iterative version of having a preprint published in a stable server, with access to all versions of the work, and “comments on”.   The
Read more