tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post1764744854803784031..comments2024-03-29T11:06:06.729+01:00Comments on Open Science - the better science?: (F)actually inevitable: 6 frames popular media use when writing about the mystery of Open ScienceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post-21781661167701325362017-08-15T23:44:03.228+02:002017-08-15T23:44:03.228+02:00Hi! very good pick of topic! Such a "pilot&qu...Hi! very good pick of topic! Such a "pilot" study definitely helps to grasp the media related public understanding of openness, it would now be very interesting to do a systematic grand study and to include specific media types, such as generalist academic journals such as science and nature, and to catalogue the assemblage of pros, cons, expectation, and the many more frames that you hint to. Your conclusion however, is a bit - lets say - "offhand", you could have summarised your insights again with a set of prospective questions to ask in follow up studies. And you could have hinted to the open definition in the beginning of your text http://opendefinition.org/ , and the many other definitions (and thought schools) that we talked about in the seminar, e.g. this text: http://book.openingscience.org/basics_background/open_science_one_term_five_schools_of_thought.html . kmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01308728128362959002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post-25770013235792728372017-06-27T23:46:49.084+02:002017-06-27T23:46:49.084+02:00Level of comprehensibility:
The blog post has clea...Level of comprehensibility:<br />The blog post has clear structure and logic, however most of the sentences are too long and confusing in terms of grammar and syntaxes. Sometimes I had to reread such sentences in order to understand what the author wanted to tell its audience. Plus, I spotted several spelling mistakes and typos. What I liked about the style, is that the author was successful in being informal with its audience by, for example, posing questions and immediately answering to them☺ At the end some thoughts related to the additional research in this area are suggested, however this does not have any ground since there was no deep literature review and submergence into the field. Thus, I believe it would be better to end the post with summarizing 6 frames and why they are interesting for publics. As for the images, I may agree that it can be tough to find relevant images in open source, so they are just nice general illustrations. The last GIF is funny though.<br />My grade would be 3.5/5.<br /><br />In the conclusion, I would like to give some recommendation to the author when writing a blog entry. Do not complicate language and grammar. Try to be short, precise and stick to the point. It’s not a scholarly article. And make it flow as if you are writing a story, this is a purpose of the blog – engage with your audience. <br /><br />Overall, I enjoyed reading this post and definitely found interesting and novel moments in relation to how we may see ‘open science’ movement presented by media.<br /><br />Thanks, Sebastian!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13303006165340207005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1761786297881638486.post-87099419154827949652017-06-27T23:46:39.375+02:002017-06-27T23:46:39.375+02:00Dear Sebastian,
In my review I will begin with gen...Dear Sebastian,<br />In my review I will begin with general observation of your blog post, then I will follow with comments on different sections/levels and conclude with some recommendations.<br />First, I think you have chosen an interesting perspective to look at how popular media frames open science and you argue that public opinion is highly dependent on it. In the beginning you briefly have stated a discourse around a definition of open science among scholars and then moved to your research interest in popular media framings of open science. Providing 6 major frames as results of your analysis you concluded with personal thoughts and suggestion for future research in this area.<br /><br />As I said your topic is very interesting however I believe that your research question is too broad and requires more time and effort to investigate. <br /><br />Level of importance:<br />The article is dedicated directly to the question of “open science” thus it’s of relevance for the seminar. The blog gives some new perspectives on how popular media frames open access by naming six frames which author observed during his analysis. The frames are not that much elaborated, but I found them quite interesting and novel to note. Therefore I would mark it with 4.5/5.<br /><br />Level of validity:<br />The six frames named and illustrated by the author are not supportive enough, taking into consideration 8 articles analyzed. Some of the arguments supported only by one example or one article, which may not mean that the same argument can be met in the rest of the articles. Plus, formulation of ‘frames’ is not really clear for me. Thus, “insufficient elaboration” does not really match the explanation provided. The first sentence of its paragraph is totally confusing (I will comment on language later). I would consider thinking about a better title. <br />My mark would be 3.5/5.<br /><br />Level of completeness:<br />The author started with the general question defining what is open science by providing a good reference to the article discussed in class. I am not sure that the second article provided as “scientifically reasonable logic” fits to the scope of your research and relevant enough to cite. Some of the articles provided in German were difficult to assess since my level of German is not that high. The author also did not provide the criteria by which he picked up those articles, as for example, he explained that choice of journals was just an eventual decision. It was not convenient to go back to articles when the author provided examples illustrating frames. Thus providing again links when referring (illustrating examples) to one or another article would be useful.<br />I would grade it with 3/5.<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13303006165340207005noreply@blogger.com