Doing Science and communicating science are two different arts altogether. Scientists perform their research in the laboratory and convey the findings in the research articles. The laboratory works are rigorously executed with proper protocol and standardizations. The outputs of the experiments, findings thereof reported in the peer-reviewed articles are mostly conceived by academic peers. The generalised way of scientific writing, particularly the methods and results portion are conceived monotonous for the general audience [1].

The cold and competent spirit of science communication needs to be revamped. Particularly in the era when science popularisation and scientific literacy peak among the masses. The effective science communication is not only desired to get the scientists down from the privileged seclusion but to bring in funding for their research [2].

While majority of the publications process from the same conveyer belt, a few attempted exclusions from this and some oozed their loopholes while doing so. I am attaching the screenshots of some papers which are from different leagues.

What better way to teach Gastric Adenocarcinoma
That is some catchy title
Mir'ror on the wall!
When authors are also marketing professionals
When you are too lazy to put statistical method
Pun (not) intended
Stays in Vagus
Die hard fandom
Grow me like you do.. what are you waiting for
Its all Hippothetical 🙂
This is to all repetitive spammers
Butter-chicken graphs next?
Next guide on SciComm
Completely insane

Now that I conclude,

Lets us have the acknowledgement section.

She said yes!!
Tu pyar hai kisi aur ka, tujhe chahta koi aur hai 😀 😀

Thanks for reading. Have a great time.

© Tryambak Srivastava


Categories: Science


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.