GeoLog

science writing

Job opportunity at the EGU General Assembly: press assistant

Job opportunity at the EGU General Assembly: press assistant

We have two vacancies for science-communication or science-journalism students in Europe to work at the press centre of the 2019 General Assembly, which is taking place in Vienna, Austria, from 7–12 April. Applications from geoscience students with experience in science communication are also very welcome.

This is a paid opportunity for budding science communicators to gain experience in the workings of a press office at a major scientific conference, and to interact with journalists. The students will join the team assisting the EGU Media and Communications Manager Bárbara Ferreira and the journalists at the press centre, and are expected to help run press conferences. Other tasks include reporting on the events at the Assembly through photographs and video (including producing a highlights video of the conference), and/or writing blog posts.

The position is open to university students (final-year undergraduates or postgraduates) in science communication/journalism or to students in the Earth, planetary or space sciences with experience in science outreach. Applicants must have experience in photo and video reporting, or science writing, have an expert command of English, and be competent working with computers and the internet.

Further information

  • Only students with a student ID card and an EU (including UK but except Croatia) or Swiss passport are allowed to work at the EGU General Assembly.
  • People who are presenting an abstract at the EGU General Assembly are not eligible to apply.
  • Tax regulations in your home country could obligate you to pay income taxes on the amount earned at the EGU General Assembly (including travel money). The respective taxation is your responsibility.
  • If you have other income in Austria in 2019, you will be forced to pay income taxes in Austria should the sum of all income, including the amount earned at the EGU General Assembly (including travel money), exceed €11,000 gross.

Work hours and payment

Press assistants will need to be in Vienna from Sunday 7 April in the early afternoon until late on Friday 12 April. They should expect to work between 50 and 55 hours and will receive a wage of €9/hour, in addition to a €150 allowance for those who don’t reside in Vienna (the city of your university is considered your current place of residence). Student press assistants also receive additional support towards travel expenses and complimentary breakfast and lunch at the press centre from Monday to Friday.

Applications must include

  • Cover letter and CV (one page each) summarising relevant experience
  • Two samples of recent science communication work such as photo features, videos or written articles (published or unpublished, aimed at a general audience; links to an online portfolio are welcomed).

Application documents (in English) should be submitted by email in a single file to Bárbara Ferreira at media@egu.eu. Bárbara can also be contacted for informal enquiries by email or phone (+49-89-2180-6703). The deadline for applications is 10 December 2018.

If your application is successful, you will be asked to fill in a form to submit some information about yourself (including a copy of your passport and student ID card) to our conference organiser Copernicus.

The European Geosciences Union (EGU, www.egu.eu) is Europe’s premier geosciences organisation, dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in the Earth, planetary, and space sciences for the benefit of humanity, worldwide. The EGU organises a General Assembly that attracts over 14,000 scientists each year, as well as reporters. The meeting’s sessions cover a wide range of topics, including volcanology, planetary exploration, the Earth’s internal structure and atmosphere, climate, as well as energy and resources.

Enmeshed in the gears of publishing – lessons from working as a young editor

Enmeshed in the gears of publishing – lessons from working as a young editor

Editors of scientific journals play an important role in the process research publication. They act as the midpoint between authors and reviewers, and set the direction of a given journal. However, for an early career scientist like me (I only defended my PhD in early December 2016) the intricacies of editorial work remained somewhat mysterious. Many academic journals tend to appoint established, more senior scientists to these roles, and while most scientists interact with editors regularly their role is not commonly taught to more junior researchers. I was fortunate to get the chance to work, short term, as an associate editor at Nature Geoscience in the first 4 months of this year (2017). During that time, I learned a number of lessons about scientific publishing that I felt could be valuable to the community at large.

What does an editor actually do?

The role of the editor is often hidden to readers; in both paywalled and open-access journals the notes and thoughts editors make on submitted manuscripts are generally kept private. One of the first things to appreciate is that editors judge whether a manuscript meets a set of editorial thresholds that would make it appropriate for the journal in question, rather than whether the study is correctly designed or the results are robust. I’d argue most editors are looking for a balance of an advance beyond existing literature and the level of interest a manuscript offers for their audience.

At each step of the publication process, from initial submission, through judging referee comments, to making a final decision, the editor is making a judgement whether the manuscript still meets those editorial thresholds.

The vast majority of the papers I got the chance to read were pretty fascinating, but since the journal I was working for is targeted at the whole Earth science community some of these were a bit too esoteric, and as such didn’t fit the thresholds we set to appeal to the journal audience.

I actually found judging papers on the basis of editorial thresholds refreshing – in our capacity as peer reviewers, most scientists are naturally sceptical of methodology and conclusions in other studies, but as an editor in most cases I was able to take the authors conclusions at face-value, and leave the critical assessment to referees.

That’s where the important difference lies; even though editors are generally scientists by training, since they are naturally not experts in every field that they receive papers from, it’s paramount to find reviewers who have the appropriate expertise and to ask them the right set of questions. In journals with academic editors, the editors may have more leeway to make critical comments, but impartiality is key.

Much of this may be already clear to many readers, but perhaps less so to more junior scientists. Many of the editorial decisions are somewhat subjective, like gauging the level of interest to a journal audience.

In the context of open access research journals, I think it’s worth asking whether the editorial decisions should also be made openly readable by authors and referees – this might aid potential authors in deciding how to pitch their articles to a given journal. This feeds into my next point – what are journals looking for?

By which metrics do journals judge studies?
The second big thing I picked up is that the amount of work does not always equate to a paper being appropriate for a given journal. Invariably, authors have clearly worked hard, and it’s often really tricky to explain to authors that their study is not a good fit for the journal you’re working for.

Speaking somewhat cynically, journals run for profit are interested in articles that can sell more copies or subscriptions. Since the audiences are primarily scientists, “scientific significance” will be a dominant consideration, but Nature and subsidiary journals also directly compare the mainstream media coverage of some of their articles with that of Science – that competition is important to their business.

Many other authors have discussed the relative merits of “prestige” journals (including Nobel prize winners – https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/09/nobel-winner-boycott-science-journals), and all I’ll add here is what strikes me most is that ‘number of grad student hours worked’ is often not related to those articles that would be of a broader interest to the more mainstream media. The majority of articles don’t attract media attention of course, but I’d also argue that “scientific significance” is not strongly linked to the amount of time that goes into each study.

In the long run, high quality science tends to ensure a strong readership of any journal, but in my experience as an editor the quality of science in submitted manuscripts tends to be universally strong – the scientific method is followed, conclusions are robust, but in some cases they’re just pitched at the wrong audience. I’d argue this is why some studies have found in meta-analysis that in the majority of cases, articles that are initially rejected are later accepted in journals of similar ‘prestige’ (Weller et al. 2001, Moore et al. 2017).

As such, it’s imperative that authors tailor their manuscripts to the appropriate audience. Editors from every journal are picking from the same pool of peer reviewers, and so the quality of reviews should also be consistent, which ultimately determines the robustness of a study; so to meet editorial thresholds, prospective authors should think about who is reading the journal.
It’s certainly a fine line to walk – studies that are confirmatory of prior work tend to attract fewer readers, and as such editors may be less inclined to take an interest, but these are nonetheless important for the scientific canon.

In my short time as an editor I certainly didn’t see a way around these problems, but it was eye-opening to see the gears of the publication system – the machine from within, as it were.

Who gets to review?
One of the most time-consuming jobs of an editor is finding referees for manuscripts. It generally takes as long, if not far longer, than reading the manuscript in detail!

The ideal set of referees should first have the required set of expertise to properly assess the paper in question, and then beyond that be representative of the field at large. Moreover, they need to have no conflict of interest with the authors of the paper. There are an awful lot of scientists working in the world at the moment, but in some sub-fields it can be pretty hard to find individuals who fit all these categories.

For example, some studies in smaller research fields with a large number of senior co-authors often unintentionally rule out vast swathes of their colleagues as referees, simply because they have collaborated extensively.

Ironically, working with everyone in your field leaves no-one left to review your work! I have no doubt that the vast majority of scientists would be able to referee a colleagues work impartially, but striving for truly impartial review should be an aim of an editor.

As mentioned above, finding referees who represent the field is also important. More senior scientists have a greater range of experience, but tend to have less time available to review, while junior researchers can often provide more in-depth reviews of specific aspects. Referees from a range of geographic locations help provide diversity of opinion, as well as a fair balance in terms of gender.

It was certainly informative to compare the diversity of authors with the diversity of the referees they recommended, who in general tend to be more male dominated and more US-centric than the authors themselves.

A positive way of looking at this might be that this represents a diversifying Earth science community; recommended referees tend to be more established scientists, so greater author diversity might represent a changing demographic. On the other hand, it’s certainly worth bearing in mind that since reviewing is increasingly becoming a metric by which scientists themselves are judged, recommending referees who are more diverse is a way of encouraging a more varied and open community.

What’s the job like?
Editorial work is definitely rewarding – I certainly felt part of the scientific process, and providing a service to authors and the readership community is the main remit of the job.

I got to read a lot of interesting science from a range of different places, and worked with some highly motivated people. It’s a steep learning curve, and tends to be consistently busy; papers are always coming in, so there’s always a need to keep working.

Perhaps I’m biased, but I’d also suggest that scientists could work as editors at almost any stage in their careers, and it offers a neat place between the world of academia and science communication, which I found fascinating.

By Robert Emberson, freelance science writer

References

Moore, S., Neylon, C., Eve, M. P., O’Donnell, D. P., and Pattinson, D. 2017. “Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence. Palgrave Communications, 3, 16105

Weller A.C. 2001 Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Information Today: Medford NJ

Announcing the winner of the EGU Best Blog Post of 2016 Competition

Announcing the winner of the EGU Best Blog Post of 2016 Competition

There is no doubt that 2016 was packed full of exciting, insightful and informative blog posts. An impressive 360 posts were published across the EGU’s official blog, GeoLog, as well as the network and division blogs!

In December, to celebrate the excellent display of science writing across the network and division blogs, we launched the EGU Blogs competition. From a list of posts selected by our blog editors, we invited you, the EGU Blogs readers, to vote for your favourite post of 2016. After a little over three weeks of voting, the winners are finally in!

Without further ado, we’d like to extend a big congratulations to the Cryosphere Blog, who take this year’s crown, with a 58% share of the votes, for their post following the journey of a snowflake! From the water vapour in a cloud to the snowman in your garden, find out what leads to the complex structure you can see on in the image below!

Snowflakes viewed with a low temperature scanning electron microscope (SEM). [ Image Credit : Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture via Wikimedia]

All the posts entered into the competition are worthy of a read too, so head over to the poll and click on the post titles to learn about a variety of topics: from the fate of Fukushima Iodine-129 in rain and groundwater, to exploring whether letters of recommendation are the key to the leaky pipeline in academia and how common soft sediment structures like slumps and flames form.

If the start of a new year, with its inevitable resolutions, along with the range and breadth of posts across the EGU Blogs have inspired you to try your hand at a little science writing then remember all the EGU Blogs welcome (and encourage!) guest posts.  Indeed, it is the variety of guest posts, in addition to regular features, which makes the blogs a great read! If you would like to contribute to any of the network, divison blogs or GeoLog, please send a short paragraph detailing your idea to the EGU Communications Officer, Laura Roberts at networking@egu.eu.

 

Looking back at the EGU Blogs in 2016: a competition

Looking back at the EGU Blogs in 2016: a competition

The past 12 months has seen an impressive 360 posts published across the EGU’s official blog, GeoLog, as well as the network and division blogs. From a lighthearted Aprils Fools’ Day post featuring an extreme chromatic phenomenon (otherwise known as FIB); through to how climate change is affecting mountain plant’s sex ratios; features on natural hazard events throughout the year and children’s disarming ability to ask really simple questions that demand straightforward answers, 2016 has been packed full of exciting, insightful and informative blog posts.

EGU Best Blog Post of 2016 Competition

To celebrate the excellent display of science writing across the network and division blogs, we are launching the EGU Blogs competition.

From now until Monday 16th January, we invite you, the EGU Blogs readers, to vote for your favourite post of 2016. Take a look at the poll below, click on each post to read it in full, and cast your vote for the one you think deserves the accolade of best post of 2016. The post with the most votes by will be crowned the winner.

[polldaddy poll=9618218]

New in 2016

Not only have the blogs seen some great writing throughout the year, they’ve also continued to keep readers up to date with news and information relevant to each of our scientific divisions.

With the addition of WaterUnderground, the network blogs now feature a groundwater nerd blog written by a global collective of hydrogeologic researchers. The new blog is for water resource professionals, academics and anyone interested in groundwater, research, teaching and supervision. Excitingly, it is also the first blog hosted jointly by the EGU Blogs and the AGU blogosphere.

The portfolio of division blogs was also expanded, with the addition of the Tectonics and Structural Geology (TS), Planetary and Solar System Sciences(PS) and Earth and Space Science Informatics (ESSI) blogs back in July. Since then they’ve featured posts on big data, a regular feature showcasing the variety of research methods used in tectonics and structural geology and research from the now iconic Rosetta Mission.

Fissure eruption at Bardabunga in 2014. Photo by Ragnar Th. Sigurdsson, as featured on the TS Blog.

Get involved

Are you a budding science writer, or want to try your hand at science communication? All the EGU Blogs, from GeoLog (the official EGU blog), through to the network and division blogs, welcome guest contributions from scientists, students and professionals in the Earth, planetary and space sciences.

It couldn’t be easier to get involved. Decide what you’d like to write about, find the blog that is the best fit for your post and contact the blog editor – you can find all editor details on the individual blog pages. If in doubt, you can submit your idea for a post via the Submit a Post page on GeoLog, or email the EGU Communications Officer, Laura Roberts, who can help with initial enquiries and introduce you to individual blog editors.

Don’t forget to a look at the blog pages for a flavour of the content you can expect from the new, and existing, blogs in 2017. The blogs are also a great place to learn about new opportunities, exciting fields of research and keep up to date with news relating to the upcoming 2017 General Assembly.

 

Editor’s note on the EGU Best Blog Post of 2016 Competition: The winning post will be that with the most votes on 15th January 2017. The winner will be announced on GeoLog shortly after voting closes. The winning post will take home an EGU goodie bag, as well as a book of the winners choice from the EGU library (there are up to 4 goodie bags and books available per blog. These are available for the blog editor(s) – where the winning post belongs to a multi-editor blog, and for the blog post author – where the author is a regular contributor or guest author and not the blog editor). In addition, a banner announcing the blog as the winner of the competition will be displayed on the blog’s landing page throughout 2017.