A couple of weeks ago, there was a flurry of tweets, tagged with #sci140 hashtag on Twitter. What was that about? People were trying to summarize scientific papers in 140 characters or less. Actually, they had to use less as the hashtag itself took some space.
Almost 200 tweets were made, and they have all been collected (and the winners chosen) in this blog post on f1000 blog.
I found the exercise fascinating!
First, it was quite incredible how many more people chose to tweet well-known classical papers compared to those tweeting their own (thus obscure) publications. I would not call it cheating, but summarizing stuff that’s in textbooks is much easier. Why?
First, you don’t need to spend another several characters in order to include a link – a must if one tweeted their own paper. Why link to Pasteur, Darwin, Shroedinger, Newton, Galileo, Watson&Crick or Pavlov when everyone already knows what they did? I had to link to my papers when I tweeted them – a tweet was like a press title: not a joke, not a definitive description, but a bait for the reader to get sufficiently curious to click on the link and read the paper itself.
Second, there is so much that one could assume readers already knew about the well-known historical papers (and sometimes entire books!). Tweeting a Classic was more an exercise in witty hinting as to which paper was mentioned than actually explaining it – those who tweeted their own papers had no such luxury: they had to really summarize the papers.
Then, looking at only the tweets summarizing people’s own publications, thus obscure publications that could not be just hinted about, it could be seen that they had two distinct flavors. Some people decided to use the space to say what they did (methods) and others decided to say what they discovered (conclusions). Nobody said why the study was relevant or important to lay audience on Twitter. Obviously, the character limit makes it impossible to include all three. Why did people make choices they did? Who chose methods, who chose conclusions, and why?
I found tweets about people’s own papers fascinating. Why are these tweets so much clearer about the papers than the actual official titles of those same papers? Can we or should we try to make our papers’ titles so short yet so informative as if they will be tweeted in full?
Twitter forces one to think about the economy of words, to become much more efficient with one’s use of language. It takes work and thought and practice to get to the point of tweeting truly well. I remember Jay Rosen once saying that some of his tweets take 45 minutes to compose and edit until he is satisfied that the text uses the words for maximal clarity and impact. There is no luxury in using superfluous language and the result can be a crystal-clear statement or description that far outshines the often-wordy original.
Go look at the collected tweets. What do you think?
Then, I want to issue a challenge. All these tweets were done by working research scientists. I would like to see how professional science journalists, writers and editors would tweet those same exact papers, using the same #sci140 hashtag.
Are professional users of economic language better or worse than people who deeply understand the underlying science but were never trained to be economical with language? Go try….
My HomepageMy homepage is at http://coturnix.org. It is temporarily stripped to minimal information, but more will come soon.
Search This Blog:
There are no public comments available to display.
- BIO101 - Evolution of Biological Diversity
- Lesson of the Day: Circadian Clocks are HARD to shift!
- Food goes through a rabbit twice. Think what that means!
- Domestication - it's a matter of time (always is for me, that's my 'hammer' for all nails)
- Introducing Wired Science Blog network!
- Wikipedia, just like an Organism: clock genes wiki pages
- Grand Rounds Vol. 6 No. 49 - a conference in a tropical island resort
- BIO101 - Physiology: Coordinated Response
- BIO101 - Physiology: Regulation and Control
- Secrets of New York's real estate agents: 'All apartments are basically four walls' theguardian.com/world/2014/jul… 16 hours ago
- For your daily bread, give thanks to the latest genetic research geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/22/for… 16 hours ago
- Organic farmer perspective: Don’t ban neonics but put aside simplistic views of harmlessness of pesticides geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/22/org… 16 hours ago
- Why a Bunch of Science Writers Are Writing About a Fictional Planet scilogs.com/communication_… 17 hours ago
- RT @ferrisjabr: This astounding fruit salad tree grows 40 diff kinds of fruit io9.com/this-tree-is-g… This is how it's possible http://t.co/… 17 hours ago
- RT @jayrosen_nyu: @Chanders For me, Mircea Eliade amazon.com/Sacred-Profane… and Benedict Anderson versobooks.com/books/60-imagi… are best on social co… 17 hours ago
- Long John Silver’s invites you to the seafood revolution scienceline.org/2014/07/long-j… 18 hours ago
- A long-time science reporter wrote a questionable book on genetics. Can we trust his other work? cjr.org/the_observator… 18 hours ago
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.