Pre-Meeting Survey
The goal of the survey was to surface how participants think, feel, and experience scientific communication today and their hopes for its future. The results informed the sessions we designed allowing us to lean into nurturing alignment that already exists, edge into the frictions, biases, or mental models that often hold discussion back.
The overall vibe[1] of the survey was partly sunny with a chance of “well actually...”. There were many bright spots but definitely some cloud cover hanging around. There’s optimism, but also stretches of frustration and fatigue that dim the brightness.
Responses¶
Agree on the “why” but diverge on the “how”.
See the full survey results, in *gasp* a PDF.
Thematic Tensions¶
Scientific communication is shaped by a series of deep-seated tensions—ideas that often appear to be in conflict, yet reveal opportunities for transformation when reconsidered. To design better systems for sharing research, we must challenge the assumptions embedded in traditional practices and ask what it would mean to communicate science in ways that reflect how it is actually done. There were four thematic tensions that were present in the survey responses.
- Rigor vs. Speed
- There is a prevailing belief that rigorous science must be slow, deliberate, and methodical—an understandable stance given the stakes of credible knowledge. Yet in a world shaped by rapid developments, public crises, and real-time collaboration, the need for timely sharing is more urgent than ever. We must ask: can speed and rigor coexist? And what systems would allow scientists to share responsibly before everything is finalized?
- Finality vs. Iteration
- Scientific publishing still privileges the notion of research as a finished product. Traditional journals, preprints, and PDFs reinforce the idea that findings must be polished and complete before they can be seen. But science is inherently iterative—a process of refinement, feedback, and evolution. What if our communication tools mirrored this reality? What are we really trying to preserve when we demand finality?
- Trust vs. Transparency
- Transparency is often treated as a substitute for trust: if we can see how research was done, we can trust its conclusions. But transparency alone is not enough—and in some cases, it can feel invasive or punitive, especially in systems that historically relied on prestige and reputation. True trust must be designed into the processes and structures of science, not merely exposed through them. We must distinguish between transparency that builds trust, and transparency that replaces it.
- Access vs. Reuse
- Open access has made enormous strides in removing paywalls and legal barriers to scientific information. But access is not the same as utility. Making science truly reusable requires attention to format, structure, and design. Open access solves who can see the research; reuse solves what someone can do with it. If we want science to be built upon, we must design for function—not just availability.
Word Associations¶
Tone: Cynical, dismissive
Top Emotion: Disgust
Participants view it as outdated and unhelpful—associated with reputation games, not scientific merit.
Tone: Hopeful but critical
Top Emotion: Frustration
Valued in principle, but seen as insufficient alone—concerns about cost, accessibility, and implementation.
Tone: Curious, cautiously optimistic
Top Emotion: Interest
Viewed as promising but underdefined. Some confusion or skepticism about how it works in practice.
Tone: Principled, urgent
Top Emotion: Determination
Strong agreement that it’s essential; often tied to systemic failures or neglected priorities.
Tone: Practical, neutral-positive
Top Emotion: Trust
Seen as necessary infrastructure—functional, if unexciting.
Tone: Positive, idealistic
Top Emotion: Hope
Framed as essential to transparency and collaboration; some concerns around implementation.
Tone: Critical, reflective
Top Emotion: Concern
Seen as undervalued, misunderstood, or trapped in outdated models (e.g., “information deficit”).
Tone: Mixed—respectful but wary
Top Emotion: Appreciation
Acknowledged as important, but some frustration about rigid norms or outdated enforcement.
Urgent priorities¶
What is the most urgent priority in reshaping scientific communication?
- Reproducibility and Rigor
- A top concern was ensuring science is reproducible, especially through better practices around data, code, and methods sharing.
- Reforming Publishing
- Several called out the need to restructure or replace traditional publishing, citing its slowness, cost, and misaligned incentives.
- Infrastructure and Incentives
- Some focused on funding, governance, and infrastructure—the systems that enable more open and efficient communication.
- Incentives for sharing nontraditional outputs were also seen as pivotal.
- Equity and Inclusion
- A few pointed to equity as an urgent priority—ensuring the future of science communication is not only open, but accessible and inclusive.
- Speed and Accessibility
- Others highlighted the need to speed up sharing, reduce friction, and make outputs more immediately available to practitioners and the public.
Again, this survey was designed to surface what the room agreed on and where there were differences in opinions so that the facilitators knew what we were walking into! (n=18)
