Advertisement

Communicating Scientific Research Through the Web and Social Media: Experience of the United Nations University with the Our World 2.0 Web Magazine

  • Brendan F. D. Barrett
  • Mark Notaras
  • Carol Smith
Chapter
Part of the Innovations in Science Education and Technology book series (ISET, volume 21)

Abstract

The communication of scientific research in all areas, including the geosciences, is being transformed as the web and social media gain increasing influence. Universities and researchers are beginning to take advantage of new opportunities afforded by these tools in order to explore how best to increase their research outreach. A number of significant challenges need to be addressed, however, including issues of quality assurance, editorial control, peer perception and how to measure online impact (or literally what do web statistics mean?). These challenges are explored in this chapter with reference to the United Nations University’s experience with the development of an online environmental magazine entitled “Our World 2.0” (http://ourworld.unu.edu).

Keywords

Social Medium Editorial Team Creative Common Licence British Broadcasting Corporation Scientific Research Communication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

 The Our World 2.0 web magazine is a collaborative effort that brings together expertise from across the UN University. Permission to pursue this initiative was given by the UN University Rector, Konrad Osterwalder, in 2008. The team involved many dedicated individuals, beyond the editorial team who wrote this chapter, including Sean Wood, David Jimenez, Daniel Powell, Luis Patron, Citt Williams, Kaori Brand, Megumi Nishikura, Oleg Butuzov, Jason Hall, Stephan Schmidt, Rie Hayafune and Taeko Okada. We would also like to thank the 396 authors, both within and outside of the UN University, who have contributed articles to Our World 2.0.

References

  1. Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(6). http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2125/1972. Accessed 5 Jan 2011.
  2. Drucker, P. (2000). The ecological vision: Reflections on the American condition. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Henderson, M. (2010). Problems with peer review. British Medical Journal. http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1409.extract. Accessed 5 Jan 2011.
  4. Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6 (This journal was published by MCB University Press, now Emerald).Google Scholar
  5. University College London., & Emerald Group Publishing Limited. (2010). Social media and research workflow. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/infostudies/research/ciber/social-media-report.pdf . Accessed 5 Jan 2011.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brendan F. D. Barrett
    • 1
  • Mark Notaras
    • 1
  • Carol Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Office of CommunicationsUnited Nations UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations