Are you more likely to get your insight on a scientific topic from a
What?? I find it hard to believe that percentage of people even know how to find peer reviewed articles.
I prefer to conduct my own research/experiments. That way, I can actually believe the findings.
Journal written by a highly educated scientist
No way! I can't believe that this high of a percentage of your followers reads primary scientific literature.
Riiiiight. Apparently, I attract BS in large quantities.
Hell, even *I* am not going to claim that I read (much) primary literature any more. (1) I would if I could; man I really miss my academic access to science journals! (2) I'm not enough of an expert in many fields to actually read the primary
literature and truly understand it. I depend on *good* science journalists to help me with that.
Most often a YouTube poison, which I then look through to find a study or information about it, as close to first hand as possible.
Peer reviewed journal. :0)
Youngest son or news.
I would pick journal, but apparently PLoS ONE isn't exactly the same as every other peer reviewed journal because it's, you know, peer reviewed. And accessible online without a fee. So I guess my vote is journal, only better.
This is a trick question.
The correct answer, from Rj's perspective is "RJ."
I use a few science news apps. So I guess journalist? Not sure
That's a gray area.
Often, in their effort to write a story, they attach a link to the original work, which is ok by me.
My favorite science app is "science 360 radio". It's like pbs but all about science.
100% so far? Really?
This poll needs a BS detector. I seriously doubt everyone pays hundreds of dollars a year per journal.
Probably, although students get them for free (that is, via tuition) at many colleges.
Lol, science journalism is awful. Media outlets either grossly misinterpret something to talk up the Doom and Gloom factor, or they treat science like a debate club, with ONE advocate on each side of an issue.
I find they try and present it in their standard "story" format. A quote here. A 'fact' presented out of context. A zippy line that states how a topic of interest is just flat-out misunderstood. Journalist follow a format taught to them to
entice customers and not to properly convey information.
True. They often open up with a person or family affected, then explain the science behind it. I guess that's how it's done in journalism school.
It's supposed to be emotional. It's supposed to make the reader "connect". It's formulated.
It's not the way facts should be delivered.
There are some good science journalists, but you have to hunt for them.