Methods of dissemination

[ajb]

Let me list the methods of dissemination of research work that I can think of. I then invite comments on these and please add any other methods I have missed out. I am thinking of mathematics and physics in particular, but I expect most of the list will apply to all scientific branches.

 

In no particular order:

 

1. Publish papers in reputable journals.
   
2. Place preprints of the arXiv.
   
3. Personal websites.
   
4. Online blogs.
   
5. Give talks at conferences.
   
6. Talk to people at conferences and meetings, even if you are not presenting a paper.
   
7. Give seminar talks.
   
8. Give a lecture series.
   
9. Email other researchers giving details of where to find your work.
   
10. Write monographs.
    
11. Write a popular science book.
    
12. Get on local and/or national radio.
    
13. Get on local and/or national TV.
    
14. Write articles for specialist magazines, e.g. Physics World or New Scientist.
    
15. Get in the local and/or national news papers.
    

 

What of the above has worked well for you? In some of the above the details of the work will necessarily be missing, but the overall idea and importance of the work could be communicated.

[lemur]

My impression is that much scientific work has evolved in the direction of discursive-positioning. People are not so much interested in the substantive content of publications as they are in using these publications to establish the status and disciplinary affiliations of the writer. In this way, scientists are able to secure institutional positions and career stability. This is a rather cynical point of view, but the fact is that I rarely if ever see scientists who break with all the conventions of academic procedures and whose work/ideas are still noted and respected. I once heard someone say that if a researcher would develop a cure for AIDS, it wouldn't matter who they cited or what was on their CV. With many other less blatantly relevant research, however, I think more people submit to the authority of journals and publishers to accept or reject work than that they actually read and (attempt to) judge for themselves. There is a fear of going out on a limb to declare a piece of marginal writing as having potential, so people take the safe route and reject things until others have accepted them. This gives publishers and editors too much power over validation and it is disappointing that so many scientists shirk democratic participation in validation discourses by insisting on peer review by "experts" instead. There is too little checking and balancing of authority in contemporary scientific discourse, imo.