Female Blogging Manifesto: #Scio12 In Action

Jan 25 2012 Published by under [Information&Communication]

The Science Online 2012 session on the perils of blogging female generated discussion, both at the conference and on the internet.  Comments to female bloggers are not merely sexist. Many are viscious, some are threatening, and some cross the line into criminal intent. If you don't believe me, search the #mencallmethings hashtag on twitter for examples. Kate Clancy blogged about the need for a posse, a group that gets it and can fight off these, well, douchecanoes when they materialize.

A number of us gathered later that evening, expressing our frustration that the session continues to remain necessary. We cannot believe that we have not moved beyond these blatant displays of sexism and misogyny and hate. We are ready to move forward; why isn't the discussion?

Yup, it's pink.

The answer came at the banquet Friday evening, when Janet Stemwedel took to the stage in The Monti Storytelling event. (This story will eventually be available as a podcast here). In the fall of 2011 the blogosphere exploded with a discussion of "gendered" science kits - you know, pink girl kits for bubble bath and cosmetics, while the boys get microscopes and chemistry sets that look like something an actual scientist might have in the lab. These kits reinforce the overwhelming value of girls' femininity while supposedly encouraging scientific endeavors. Dr. Free-ride, her "nom de blog", related how she heard about this topic and thought, "Not again." She felt tired; she wanted to let someone else fight the battle this time.

Eventually, she sucked it up and posted.

Then, a miracle occurred. Someone at this scientific toy company saw the virtual shitstorm on the internet. Multiple blogs, opinions on Facebook, updates on Google+, and a flood from the Twitterverse were not ignored. The company announced that they would no longer sell gendered science kits. They would simply sell science kits.

VICTORY!

Now, I cannot say that without Janet's post that this would not have occurred. Was she the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back? We will never know what the minimal unit of rant is for any given change.

As I look back on our musings in the bar that evening, I realize that we must continue having these same sessions. The conversation and complaints must continue until the appropriate parties notice and act. Yes, we get tired of it. Yes, it is repetitive. Yes, it sucks. But it must be done. If not for us, for our daughters. The real daughters, whether they be tomboys or pretty-pink-princesses, and our daughters in society, those younger than us who want to inquire and write and express their thoughts on an equal footing with the menfolk.

So we will continue to complain and rant and fight and whine and even bitch. Get over it, boys - only then will it stop.

I am in this battle for the long haul. And so is my posse.

Share

5 responses so far

Writing Tools: #scio12 Pays Off Already!

Jan 23 2012 Published by under [Information&Communication]

Science Online 2012 rocked! Of course, we all knew it would. Old friendships were renewed in real life. New friends were made. I finally graced the Duke Lemur Center with my presence!

One session I attended on the first day dealt with writing tools. While I write a lot for work, most of it has been in that highly structured scientific prescribed format. Standard word processing tools handle that work fine. As I have moved to other forms of written output, I find that these usual text editors often fall short. Based on less formal conversations at #scio11, I outfitted my computer with Devonthink, a Mac-only research tool with artificial intelligence engine, and Scrivener, a writing tool with text editor that allows you to organize thoughts, facts, and other musings, then rearrange them easily. Eventually you can output them to another program for final referencing and formatting. I love Scrivener already, and I have only touched the obvious capabilites of the program. Devonthink has a steep learning curve, and I have not yet mastered it.

Putting the "Prod" in Productivity

The latest addition to my repertoire is Dr. Wicked's Write or Die (this post is starting out on that program). This bargain software (desktop version is $10 and they encourage you to install it on all of your computers) has you fill in how many words you wish to write in a given time frame. You can set it for gentle cues: when you pause, your background color changes. If you fail to resume writing the color deepens, and eventually you get an alarm.

When this software was described at the unconference, the Kamikaze mode also got our attention. With this setting, if you pause too long it starts erasing your work. Yikes! I am not ready to go there yet! You can also set it to disable your backspace key so you cannot self-edit as you go. That will be my next step, since I probably do too much immediate editing (yeah, I have spelling issues).

I downloaded the program to my laptop Sunday while several of us awaited airport transportation in the Brownstone Doubletree Lobby. Usually I get distracted and converse when in a group, even in a group of all strangers. Those visual prods kept me on track, and I finished 800 words in about 30 minutes for a piece due today (OK, technically it was due last Friday, but no one will die if it goes in today). When the word goal hit, triumphant trumpets sounded, a congratulatory window popped up and the whole group turned my way.

I. Felt. So. Proud.

I cannot wait to hit my goal for this current post. I hope someone hears it just outside my office, so I can gloat.

If you have trouble with the "sit down, shut up, and write" command, Write or Die could make you way more productive. It continues to amaze me that even at this level of education and motivation, we still struggle with getting an initial draft written. We still need the carrot and the stick.

By the way, the first draft of this post (500 words) took just under 15 minutes with Write or Die watching. Add another 15 minutes to clean it up a bit and add the illustration and links after I finished my clinic. Oh, and both of the reports that were due today were submitted before I started blogging.

Share

3 responses so far

Extra Credit

Dec 16 2011 Published by under [Education&Careers], [Information&Communication]

My favorite comic of all time

Last year at Science Online 2011, as we discussed the role of blogging in scientific outreach, the topic of academic "credit" for blogging arose. Mostly junior participants lamented that blogging would never be taken seriously until full professors had it on their CVs.

I went back and added a section of online activities to my own CV. As one of those full professors, I felt it was the least I could do.

Earlier this week Kate Clancy wrote about her upcoming 3-year review, including the difficulty the committee will have discussing her blog:

It doesn’t help that “blog” doesn’t sound very academic (oh, if only I had thought to call this the Context and Variation Monograph). And it doesn’t help that this writing isn’t just for scholars, but for everybody. That’s not because non-blogging academics don’t see the point of interacting with the public, but because this particular way of doing it is so strange to them. This isn’t a radio interview, or a book, or a talk at the local library, but a style of writing where the jargon is not academic but from the internet. We talk in ALL CAPS, we use emoticons and use extra exclamation points!!1!!1

WhizBANG! Letters...hmmmm...

She goes on to outline the virtues of blogging for a junior faculty member, including building networks, public outreach, improved writing skills, and even (gasp!) scholarship. I suspect a number of us bloggers do not really get our thoughts organized until we write them down (that's why there is a huge whiteboard in my office), and playing with a new idea in cyberspace can generate valuable feedback from a great audience. Blogging about academic works increases the audience substantially; I hope that mainstream journals can eventually embrace this robust discussion as part of the post-publication review of work.

So back to January. As a full prof, my CV did not really get examined by anyone last spring. This week I found out that I have to undergo tenure review for my new employer, and my CV must be completely rearranged. I prepared a draft, including my posts for Scientific American and Biocareers as non-refereed publications, complete with hyperlinks. I also listed my project, Academic Women for Equality Now, as an "Other" activity. [Yes, this blog got left off, mostly because it includes any shiny thing that catches my eye, especially shoes. I cannot classify my thoughts on fashion, including bottle sweaters, as any sort of academic activity.]

Our departmental reviewer got back to me with a bunch of red pixels, none of which landed on these posts. She told me to put AWEnow into my national service section. No comments about these being inappropriate activities for academic credit.

I still have work to do on my packet before it goes to full review. There is still a chance that someone will snub my online work, but so far, so good.

Anyone else out there counting their online efforts as academic work?

Share

4 responses so far

A Formal Commitment

Dec 06 2011 Published by under [Etc]

Last summer I wrote about my trial of standing work. Throughout that month I performed most writing and office work standing at my kitchen counter. Standing up straight engages your core muscles more than you notice - until you do it for a few days.

As we moved in August, my commitment to blogging and computing, let alone doing it upright, got challenged. Now that I am settling into the new job, I wanted to resume this novel computing posture. With several risers on the desk I could get the laptop keyboard and screen to a reasonable height, but the desk was way too low for comfortable  use of a mouse.

My Standing Desk (Click to enlarge)

At left you will see my new standing desk, the flexible workspace laptop stand by realspace(R). I found mine for $102 at my local Office Depot (for some reason the online price is more). This stand places the laptop keyboard 42 inches from the ground, about the same height as a shopping cart handle. A slide-out mouse surface is available 4 inches below the keyboard, and it can be pushed to either side. A USB-powered fan is built in to keep your device cool (its cord hangs loose in the photo), and a cupholder can be swung out from the bottom level of the deck.

The height adjusts lower, so I could use this sitting as well. For example, sometimes I keep references open on my laptop while working on my Windows desktop; dropping the stand would facilitate this function. Up till now, I placed the laptop on the desk next to my other computer, a perfectly miserable height for my arms.

My bad knee tolerates the standing posture reasonably well. I use the Pomodoro technique while writing, so I stand in 25 minute blocks. My 5 minute break between pomodoros may involve sitting or walking around. As anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows, I often wear shoes that are not made for standing (but they look gorgeous). Underneath the stand you will notice a pair of "leopard" ballet flats. These are actually Crocs (like these but more fun), and they feel like I am walking on clouds.

It would be nice to have a monitor at a slightly higher level, so I did not have to work with my head bowed; however, that sort of workspace gets expensive fast. Perhaps if I ever make the jump to a treadmill desk I will take that leap as well.

In the meantime, this set-up works great.

Share

3 responses so far

The Pace of Change

Jun 27 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

For at least a decade it has been recommended that the isoforms of nitric oxide synthase (NOS) be indicated by number, not letter. Brain or neuronal NOS should be 1, inducible NOS 2, and endothelial NOS 3. These isoforms were named for the situation or tissue in which they were initially identified. Like many such things in science, over time it became clear that nNOS and eNOS existed in other tissues, and that iNOS was expressed under baseline conditions, not just after induction.

Yet today, in 2011, I continue to hear about lettered NOS in multiple sessions at a scientific meeting. What will it take to change behavior? NOS police with stun guns? Abbreviation linebackers?

What makes you change the way you label something? It only took a couple of reviewers correcting me to change my ways.

Share

No responses yet

Better Blogging

Jun 07 2011 Published by under [Information&Communication]

An article in WebsiteMagazine.com (June issue) dealt with writing better business blogs. It covered the usual stuff, but pointed out two web sites to assess and, perhaps, improve readability.

Readability tools measure the educational level necessary to understand the material. These tools use measures of words per sentence, syllables per word, and other proxy measures of difficulty. Microsoft Word will generate a number of these via its proofreading tools. Below is the information for a one-page agreement for my son to play American Legion baseball this summer:

The analysis starts with basic count of words, characters, paragraphs, and sentences. The program then calculates sentences per paragraph, words per sentence, and characters per word. The first readability indicator, the percentage of passive sentences, has been addressed in earlier posts. Flesch Reading Ease purports to measure just that, with higher scores being easier. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level presents the years of school needed to understand the text.

What if you work online rather than in Microsoft Word? The article presents two websites that can measure readability by URL. I tested a recent post of mine on stereotype threat, first at www.read-able.com, which generates the following scores:

Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease

Based on a 0-100 scale. A high score means the text is easier to read. Low scores suggest the text is complicated to understand.

206.835 - 1.015 x (words/sentences) - 84.6 x (syllables/words)

A value between 60 and 80 should be easy for a 12 to 15 year old to understand.

Grade Level indicators

These equate the readability of the text to the US schools grade level system.

Flesch Kincaid Grade Level

0.39 x (words/sentences) + 11.8 x (syllables/words) - 15.59

Gunning Fog Score

0.4 x ( (words/sentences) + 100 x (complexWords/words) )

SMOG Index

1.0430 x sqrt( 30 x complexWords/sentences ) + 3.1291

Coleman Liau Index

5.89 x (characters/words) - 0.3 x (sentences/words) - 15.8

Automated Readability Index (ARI)

4.71 x (characters/words) + 0.5 x (words/sentences) - 21.43

Coleman Liau and ARI rely on counting characters, words and sentence. The other indices consider number of syllables and complex words (polysyllabics - with 3 or more syllables) too. Opinions vary on which type are the most accurate. It is more difficult to automate the counting of syllable as the English language does not comply to strict standards!

So how did my post on a fairly complex topic with lots of pull quotes do?

Click to enlarge

 

 

For a general adult audience in the US, experts recommend a Reading Ease score of 60-70; Reader's Digest comes in at 65 while Harvard Law Review scores about 30.

Four indices show easy readability, while the Reading Ease score suggests a more difficult text. The Coleman Liau index suggests the text would be moderately challenging for most adults.

Another site, Juicy Studio, offers many of the same tests, but with more information on the scores. Here is a table they post on typical Gunning-Fog scores:

Click for source

How did my post do at Juicy?

The two sites must not calculate in the same manner. Read-able gave my post a less readable score for Reading Ease and a higher Grade Level than the Juicy site. However, the Gunning Fog index on Juicy suggested the post was written at the level of Time Magazine, while Read-able put it at the level of Reader's Digest.

The scores suggest that my blog writing hits the right level for this audience; when I write medical information for families, I keep the grade level 5-6 and the Reading Ease close to 70 so all of the people I serve can understand it. Of course, our baseball team produced a document that players (13-18 years old) and their parents had to sign that tests out far more difficult than my sample blog post. Someone should probably revise that document!

Share

No responses yet

Papers "Not Meant To Be Factual"

Apr 21 2011 Published by under [Education&Careers], [Information&Communication], [Science in Society]

Unlike statements during political debate, scientific papers present facts. The discussion may include some speculation about the ultimate meaning of those facts, but papers generally tell a story of data and meaning.

Unless someone makes a big mistake or outright lies.

Each day seems to bring to light a new scandal and retraction (the blog Retraction Watch has plenty of material), events that seem to be accelerating over the course of my 20 years in academic medicine.

Retractions in the Medical Literature: Who is responsible for scientific integrity? by R. Grant Steen in the current issue of the American Medical Writers Association Journal caught my eye. The study examined the PubMed database for biomedical research papers retracted from 2000-2010. Almost 5 million publications resulted in 788 retractions over that decade. [Including 88 review articles - how does a review get retracted?]

 

Both the number of articles retracted and the time to retraction increased over the past decade as shown in the graph. The continuous line represents the number of subsequently retracted articles that were published in a given calendar year; more retracted articles were originally published in 2006 than in any other year. The data points in columns represent the number of months between publication and retraction, categorized by year of retraction.

In 2000, 4 articles were retracted and the longest time to retraction was 8 months; in 2004, 49 articles were retracted and the longest time to retraction was 50 months; in 2009, 184 articles were retracted and the longest time to retraction was 117 months. A total of 788 retracted articles are represented as data points in this figure (many points overlap).

So which journals suffered the most retractions? The table shows glamor mags take the prize:

Steen focuses on the role co-authors can play in assuring integrity of the literature. He does address the reasons for the increasing rate of retractions:

One could argue that authors are more dishonest now than in the recent past. This interpretation is consistent with the finding that the number of article retractions has increased significantly in recent years. However, it seems unlikely that a cultural change in the past decade has prompted this increase. Instead, journal editors may have become more aware of misconduct after the publicity about Schön, leading them to set a lower threshold for retraction when an article comes under question. These reasons may also explain why the time to retraction has increased in recent years: Journals are making a more aggressive effort to weed out questionable articles, even if they were published long ago.

One could also argue that the importance of high-impact publications for grant funding and career advancement may make the risk of fabrication or falsification of data more acceptable to researchers.

So ultimately, who is to blame when retraction occurs? Obviously, the authors must bear most of the burden, but Steen argues that the editors of the "repeat offender" journals should also hold responsibility:

Editors are gatekeepers for their journals, and if a journal does not offer a trusted brand, what does it offer? Some scientists have already blamed journal editors for failing to provide a rigorous review for papers before accepting them for publication.

Rigorous peer review may help uncover fraud or fabrication, but, as the editor of Science wrote, "It is asking too much of peer review to expect it to immunize us against clever fraud."

Ultimately, we all must retain a degree of skepticism about anything published in the literature. Even a brilliant series of experiments, performed and published in good faith, can be undone by one negative study with a new technique or tool. Authors, reviewers, and editors all must do their jobs to insure the integrity of the scientific literature.

 

Share

12 responses so far

An Active Study

Dec 13 2010 Published by under [Information&Communication]

I ran across an intriguing article in the current issue of AMWA Journal:  Use of the passive voice in medical journal articles. Amdur, Kirwan, and Morris.

The paper begins with a quote from Anitra Sheen:

“Passive voice is the bane of medical writing. It pervades medical literature with the haze and heaviness of stagnant air. Writers sometimes use passive voice in an attempt to make their work sound scholarly and scientific, when actually they are perpetuating a writing tradition that is fraught with ponderous and obscure language."
Breathing Life into Medical Writing: A Handbook. St. Louis: Mosby; 1982:21-22

The authors then discuss the real facts: no data exist on the use of passive voice in medical writing and how it compares to other forms of written communication! They set out to fill this data void by calculating the use of passive voice construction in 3 types of articles from 3 major medical journals. They selected JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and The Lancet because they have high impact factors and may model medical writing style for other journals. They also have different publishers and editorial staffs, and each issue addresses a variety of topics from a wide range of fields of medicine. From each of the 3 journals they selected 10 articles of each of 3 types, namely opinion papers, review articles, and original research reports. Thus, 90 articles from 2006 issues of these journals were selected randomly for inclusion in this study. For perspective, 30 articles from The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) provided a nonmedical control group. They chose WSJ because articles seemed similar regarding detailed analyses of complex subjects. Titles, headers, abstracts, references, and quotations were not included in the analysis.

Now for the fun part: each sentence in every article was hand-coded for passive or active construction:

Specifically, one of us (RA) evaluated every sentence in each article to determine the number of sentences with passive voice construction. For the first 20 articles, another one of us (JK) repeated the process so that both of us independently recorded the voice as active or passive in every sentence in the article. We then discussed any discrepancies and made a final determination that we both agreed on. After doing the 2-person analysis on 20 articles, there were no differences in our calculations in the next 10 articles, so, for the remaining 90 reviews, only one of us determined passive voice frequency without a double check by the other.

That makes taking daily vaginal swabs on mice seem glamorous! I am really happy that they went to the effort, for they then determined percent passive voice using Microsoft Word's grammar check. Other analyses included use of first person pronouns, and two forms of passive voice construction:

  • Passive voice, doer mentioned:  “Data were collected by a member of our research team from patients with pneumonia.”
  • Passive voice, doer not mentioned:  “Data were collected from patients with pneumonia.”
  • Active voice:   “A member of our research team collected data from patients with pneumonia.”

Figure 1: Passive Voice Frequency by Journal

As shown in the figure, no differences in passive voice use was demonstrated among the 3 medical journals, all of which were substantially higher than WSJ with a median value of 3% passive voice. Use of passive voice did not differ with article type in medical journals. When research articles were studied by section, differences were found among sections, yet all displayed more passive voice than the WSJ sample (next figure).

Figure 3: Passive Voice Frequency for Original Research Article Sections

So what's an author to do? Do we have to hire an English major to fix our writing? Lucky for us, the tools in our word processor estimate passive voice frequency pretty well as shown below:

Microsoft Word vs The Humans

The authors discuss many reasons for high frequency of passive voice use in medical writing, and they make some recommendations:

• Use the active voice in place of “doer mentioned” passive constructions.

• Limit the use of the passive voice to the Methods section of an Original Research Report because this is a section where describing who did the action distracts the reader from what was done methodologically.

• Use passive voice frequency in the overall paper as an endpoint for evaluating the quality of the writing.

• Medical journal editors should make a passive voice frequency of ≤10% a publication requirement for all types of articles.

All types of articles in all journals showed plenty of articles meeting the 10% limit, so the authors feel this goal is readily achievable. They also recognize that excessive passive voice construction is not the sole problem with medical writing; however, it is one we have the tools to fix quickly and easily.

Every writing course from middle school on up encourages the use of the active voice. Should this be a journal standard?

*By the way, I ran my text for this blog through the Word grammar check and I logged 9% passive voice sentences. W00T!

Share

7 responses so far

Bad Behavior has blocked 366 access attempts in the last 7 days.