Total SciComm: A Strategy for Communicating Open Science

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a tentative and challenging paper. The research is addressed to promote the openness and diffusion of science through a so-called Total SciComm strategy. This is an original concept, based on sports precedents. I fully agree with the authors that the need for effective science communication and an active participation from the scientific community in communicating their ideas is more pressing than ever. In my  opinion, the selection of the Seshat debate as a case study is fully appropriate.

However, the paper falls into the risk of converting transparency and the open communication of science into a greater good per se. Authors should clarify how to measure and guarantee the quality, relevance, reliability and soundness of the publications using all variety of media as novels, films, videos, games or artworks, among others. In the era of open science, the scientific dialogue only is effective when is based on robust and verifiable results.

In addition, how to deal with the confusion and distrust derived from an excessive dispersion of sources of information? How to rely on the sources in which fake news and falseness are predominant? Do the authors consider some forms of communication as principal or all of them are similarly advisable to communicating scientific ideas and engaging audiences in the world of science?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We have provided point-to-point responses to the comments of reviewers in our revised version. Please note that in the revised manuscript, the parts that are highlighted in yellow denote corrections to the old text, while the parts highlighted in green have been written anew. Below are our modifications and answers (in bold) to your comments (in italics).

This is a tentative and challenging paper. The research is addressed to promote the openness and diffusion of science through a so-called Total SciComm strategy. This is an original concept, based on sports precedents. I fully agree with the authors that the need for effective science communication and an active participation from the scientific community in communicating their ideas is more pressing than ever. In my  opinion, the selection of the Seshat debate as a case study is fully appropriate.

Thank you for your comments. We hope that our revision will meet your requirements.

However, the paper falls into the risk of converting transparency and the open communication of science into a greater good per se. Authors should clarify how to measure and guarantee the quality, relevance, reliability and soundness of the publications using all variety of media as novels, films, videos, games or artworks, among others. In the era of open science, the scientific dialogue only is effective when is based on robust and verifiable results.

In addition, how to deal with the confusion and distrust derived from an excessive dispersion of sources of information? How to rely on the sources in which fake news and falseness are predominant? Do the authors consider some forms of communication as principal or all of them are similarly advisable to communicating scientific ideas and engaging audiences in the world of science?

We have revised the section regarding Total SciComm carefully to avoid confusion. There is a small note is that the Total SciComm strategy does not mean a replacement of the traditional scientific publications. Rather, the Total SciComm strategy aims to amplify to outreach of the scientific results, as well as other aspects of science. We have provided some additional discussion to discuss the issue of misinformation, or quality control:

Page 2:

                                          

As it is clear proposals to improve the effectiveness of scientific communication are diverse, this article proposes a unifying strategy for science communication, which is called Total SciComm or All out science communication. The strategy is total in three senses. First, the core idea of this strategy is to utilize every possible media to communicate every aspect of science. And second, to efficiently explore and use those media techniques, the scientific community must deploy all of its rigors and sophisticated methods to study what makes science communication effective. And third, similar to the Dutch total-pressing football, scientists must acquire more skills and stamina for public engagement to implement the new science communication strategy.

Then we expanded on these issues in Section 4.

4. Total SciComm

 

Scientists involved in the Seshat debate have used a wide variety of media to communicate their concerns and responses. Preprints, social media, and blogs were used to spread the message across. Their flexible use of communication tools has provided a lively debate of scientific ideas and sensational findings. While the debate is largely internal, various aspects could be communicated to the public via different media.

In 1974, Netherlands went to the FIFA World Cup final and introduced Total Football (or Totaalvoetbal), a tactical system that has become the identity of Dutch football ²⁹. Total-pressing Football aims to exploit the football field’s space through the fluidity of movements and the interchangeability of players’ positions ^{30, 31}. Its core philosophy has been inherited and continuously evolved by its disciples, such as Marcelo Bielsa or Pep Guardiola ^{29, 32}. The attractiveness of Total Football lies in the combination of both aesthetic and effectiveness on the field. The style requires a deep understanding of positions and movements and perfection in basic techniques.

Inspired by the philosophy of Total Football, we would like to propose a strategy to do science communication calls: Total SciComm. Total SciComm uses every form of the media to communicate sound scientific ideas and engage all scientists in the process in its simplest form. However, just as Total Football demands perfection of the basics, Total SciComm demands a comprehensive understanding of the scientific process, total effectiveness in employing different media types to communicate science, and total honesty in science communication.

As open science has slowly become the new standard for modern science, the strategy is expected to provide total transparency in science communication. In return, the transparency to the public would help the communication be more efficient ³³, and mitigate the potentially harmful effect of scientific retraction ³⁴. An early model of the Total SciComm strategy is presented in Figure 2:

Figure 2. A preliminary model of the Total SciComm strategy

Essentially, the Total SciComm strategy means using every medium to communicate science. In the Seshat debate, the conventional communication tools that are available were used effectively by the scientists. Traditional news media disseminated the main findings ^{14, 15}. Preprints were used for rebuttal ^{16, 17}, while blogs were used for both rebuttal ¹⁹ as well as providing personal opinions ²¹. Similarly, social media were used for quick public discussion.

These media were all included in Figure 2. However, we argue that there are other media that scientists should also utilize. The main goal is to bring science to a wide range of audiences, including scientists, policymakers, and the public. For examples:

Scientific novel: Human beings are a storytelling species, and storytelling is a powerful tool for scientists. Indeed, scientific research is often dry and technical, but significant findings can be translated into a narrative. For instance, Amanda C. Niehaus—a biologist—has written several novels and short stories based on her research. According to her own experience, unlike the certainty of research, writing fiction lets her explore new possibilities and come up with new ideas ³⁵.

Scientific film and video: On YouTube, crash course videos or lecture videos have received many views. They are usually short but have a strong visual animation to support the explanation. As a more established art form, a film can suffer from the artistic expression of the filmmaker. Nonetheless, the ability to visualize a scientific concept is their strength. Classic science fiction such as Blade Runner (1982) or 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) utilizes scientific ideas and philosophical discussions. Nowadays, scientific journals have accepted video abstracts, providing another useful way to communicate the research.

Scientific game: The gaming market reached a value of US$167.9 billion in 2020 ³⁶. The interactive gaming experience has become an important part of our popular culture. In the scientific community, scientists are testing board games or indie games to teach children scientific concepts ³⁷. Gamers even helped to find a solution for the AIDS puzzle through a science puzzles game ³⁸. Recent studies also suggested the untapped power of using video games to raise pro-environmental awareness ³⁹. The scientific concept and gaming experience can also introduce the life and experiences of a scientist. The interactive nature of video games is perfect especially useful in explaining difficult procedures and methods in science. For instance, the Seshat database is a complicated data collection project that took several years to complete ^{23, 24}. Scientists can understand the data collection process, but gamification of the data collection process might help the public understand science better.

Scientific art: Artists have communicated abstract ideas for generations. However, as discussed above, artistic expression sometimes strays too far away from the scientific truth. It does not mean that art is unable to utilize both. From September 2018 to January 2019, Science Gallery London introduced an art exhibition exploring the concept of addiction ⁴⁰. Scientists and artists are searching for aesthetics, and there have been great artists who are scientists too.

While the idea sounds simple, its practicality can be challenging, especially with highly technical aspects such as methods. The challenge in using these media also lies in their high entry point. While writing a blog can be done easily, making a video requires scientists to possess various tools and skills.

Moreover, when social media are magnifying misinformation and fake news, the usage of different media needs serious quality control. First and foremost, the Total SciComm strategy should be used on verified and peer-reviewed scientific results. The Total SciComm strategy will only work when the science is sound. This principle must not be compromised. Secondly, different forms of media have their own market functions. Thus, these functions should be utilized to become the second guard against misinformation, fake news, and other issues. For instance, films, video games, or arts have professional reviewers. In platforms with a social media nature like YouTube, the views, likes, dislikes, and the community itself are viable options for safeguarding quality.

 

Once again, we appreciate the hard work and time that you have spent on this manuscript. We hope that the revised paper has met your requirements.

Please accept our sincere thanks for your great contributions to the improvement of the overall advancement of sciences in the world.

Shall you have further comments, we look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of all the authors,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The central thesis of this paper is to propose a method for science communication in which “the scientific community employs every medium to communicate scientific ideas and engages all scientist[s] in the process.” It is an interesting idea, but it falls short in its execution.

First, the example you chose was not ideal for this discussion. You note that researchers used blog posts, pre-prints, response papers, and social media posts to respond to an original, disputed article using Seshat data. In lines 102-103, you add that these communication methods were used “because of the focus on a specific case.” However, you also criticize this case for not meeting the (unspecified) standards you are proposing as the foundation for Total SciComm.

My concern is that you chose an example that is not relevant to the Total SciComm model for the sake of dissecting and criticizing it. Researchers discussed the Seshat data within their communities and corners of the Internet. Pre-prints and social media posts may be open to the public and discussed by some news organizations, but the example you have pulled feels to be an example of “scholarly communication,” wherein scholars respond and build on one another’s work to do better scholarship in the future, and not “science communication,” wherein researchers attempt to educate the public.

• Using a different case study with public science communication as its focus would help make this discussion better and more complete.

Second, and perhaps most distressingly, your concept of Total SciComm is underdeveloped. You’ve chosen to highlight four examples of work already in place in the scientific community and which have been done for years. These are unique and noteworthy examples, but they do not make up a foundation for your theory. Furthermore, you are lacking some critical aspects of science communication that are more common and embedded in scientific communities, such as poster presentations and open peer reviews, the latter of which can add context and depth to the papers they accompany. If you want to pitch the idea of Total SciComm, you could present a process for doing that work or a matrix describing different types of communication. Regardless of what you choose to do, it would help if you described Total SciComm in more depth. 

• I would recommend a complete overhaul of the Total SciComm section of this paper, with more of a focus on how you would describe this method of science communication and what processes researchers can employ to engage in Total SciComm.
• If you would like to keep the focus here on examples of communication methods, then I would recommend reframing this paper around the presence of unique science communication methods and how they can add value to our work. Doing this would require removing your discussion of “Total SciComm” from the paper since it currently has no bearing on the discussion presented.

Finally, this paper could better explore the existing literature around science communication and methods for doing science communication in an open science setting, specifically.

• Comparing your Total SciComm method to other proposed methods for science communication could strengthen your argument and provide you with more context for your proposed work.

While we are on the topic of citations, various sources mentioned in this paper, such as social media posts or YouTube videos, are not cited.

• You should properly cite those sources to allow the readers to trace back the context of the information presented and to explore the examples discussed.

Overall, this paper presents some interesting ideas but fails to explore those ideas in enough depth to reach a meaningful conclusion. If you want to propose a new method for sharing scientific information, you need to present more guidance about that method, how it works, and what makes it different from the existing norms in science communication. If you want to explore a single example of science communication and share alternative means of doing that work, you should amend the paper’s abstract and introduction to reflect that context. As it stands, this paper fails to accomplish either goal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We have provided point-to-point responses to the comments of reviewers in our revised version. Please note that in the revised manuscript, the parts that are highlighted in yellow denote corrections to the old text, while the parts highlighted in green have been written anew. Below are our modifications and answers (in bold) to your comments (in italics).

The central thesis of this paper is to propose a method for science communication in which “the scientific community employs every medium to communicate scientific ideas and engages all scientist[s] in the process.” It is an interesting idea, but it falls short in its execution.

Thank you for your comments. We will try our best to expand the idea and help it reach its full potential.

First, the example you chose was not ideal for this discussion. You note that researchers used blog posts, pre-prints, response papers, and social media posts to respond to an original, disputed article using Seshat data. In lines 102-103, you add that these communication methods were used “because of the focus on a specific case.” However, you also criticize this case for not meeting the (unspecified) standards you are proposing as the foundation for Total SciComm.

Regarding the case of Seshat, we chose this case because it consists of several elements that characterize how science communicates in the open science era. There is a traditional publication, there is science communication through news coverage, there are preprints, blog posts, social media posts to discuss the issues. However, we would like to clarify that they did not fall short of the standards, but the Total SciComm strategy would be a viable option for the authors to further the communication of the authors’ ideas regarding the issues. We have changed the wording in the sentence to make sure that there is no confusion. For instance, in the Introduction section:

As it is clear proposals to improve the effectiveness of scientific communication are diverse, this article proposes a unifying strategy for science communication, which is called Total SciComm or All out science communication. The strategy is total in three senses. First, the core idea of this strategy is to utilize every possible media to communicate every aspect of science. And second, to efficiently explore and use those media techniques, the scientific community must deploy all of its rigors and sophisticated methods to study what makes science communication effective. And third, similar to the Dutch total-pressing football, scientists must acquire more skills and stamina for public engagement to implement the new science communication strategy. The next section will use a debate surrounding a high-profile Nature’s article13 to illustrate how scientists communicate science in the open-access era. Then, we will explain the Total SciComm strategy in detail and how it can help expand the outreach of science.

 

My concern is that you chose an example that is not relevant to the Total SciComm model for the sake of dissecting and criticizing it. Researchers discussed the Seshat data within their communities and corners of the Internet. Pre-prints and social media posts may be open to the public and discussed by some news organizations, but the example you have pulled feels to be an example of “scholarly communication,” wherein scholars respond and build on one another’s work to do better scholarship in the future, and not “science communication,” wherein researchers attempt to educate the public.

Here, the Total SciComm would be a communication of both: scholarly communication and science communication. We have provided more detail in our discussion of the Total SciComm strategy:

Scientists involved in the Seshat debate have used a wide variety of media to communicate their concerns and responses. Preprints, social media, and blogs were used to spread the message across. Their flexible use of communication tools has provided a lively debate of scientific ideas and sensational findings. While the debate is largely internal, various aspects could be communicated to the public via different media.

In 1974, Netherlands went to the FIFA World Cup final and introduced Total Football (or Totaalvoetbal), a tactical system that has become the identity of Dutch football ²⁷. Total-pressing Football aims to exploit the football field’s space through the fluidity of movements and the interchangeability of players’ positions ^{28, 29}. Its core philosophy has been inherited and continuously evolved by its disciples, such as Marcelo Bielsa or Pep Guardiola ^{27, 30}. The attractiveness of Total Football lies in the combination of both aesthetic and effectiveness on the field. The style requires a deep understanding of positions and movements and perfection in basic techniques.

Inspired by the philosophy of Total Football, we would like to propose a strategy to do science communication calls: Total SciComm. Total SciComm uses every form of the media to communicate sound scientific ideas and engage all scientists in the process in its simplest form. However, just as Total Football demands perfection of the basics, Total SciComm demands a comprehensive understanding of the scientific process, total effectiveness in employing different media types to communicate science, and total honesty in science communication.

As open science has slowly become the new standard for modern science, the strategy is expected to provide total transparency in science communication. In return, the transparency to the public would help the communication be more efficient ³¹, and mitigate the potentially harmful effect of scientific retraction ³². An early model of the Total SciComm strategy is presented in Figure 2:

 

Figure 2. A preliminary model of the Total SciComm strategy

Essentially, the Total SciComm strategy means using every medium to communicate science. In the Seshat debate, the conventional communication tools that are available were used effectively by the scientists. Traditional news media disseminated the main findings ^{14, 15}. Preprints were used for rebuttal ^{16, 17}, while blogs were used for both rebuttal ¹⁹ as well as providing personal opinions ²¹. Similarly, social media were used for quick public discussion.

These media were all included in Figure 2. However, we argue that there are other media that scientists should also utilize. The main goal is to bring science to a wide range of audiences, including scientists, policymakers, and the public. For examples:

Scientific novel: Human beings are a storytelling species, and storytelling is a powerful tool for scientists. Indeed, scientific research is often dry and technical, but significant findings can be translated into a narrative. For instance, Amanda C. Niehaus—a biologist—has written several novels and short stories based on her research. According to her own experience, unlike the certainty of research, writing fiction lets her explore new possibilities and come up with new ideas ³³. Moreover, there are developed methodology to translate scientific results into a visual novel format ³⁴.

Scientific film and video: On YouTube, crash course videos or lecture videos have received many views. They are usually short but have a strong visual animation to support the explanation. As a more established art form, a film can suffer from the artistic expression of the filmmaker. Nonetheless, the ability to visualize a scientific concept is their strength. Classic science fiction such as Blade Runner (1982) or 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) utilizes scientific ideas and philosophical discussions. Nowadays, scientific journals have accepted video abstracts, providing another useful way to communicate the research.

Scientific game: The gaming market reached a value of US$167.9 billion in 2020 ³⁵. The interactive gaming experience has become an important part of our popular culture. In the scientific community, scientists are testing board games or indie games to teach children scientific concepts ³⁶. Gamers even helped to find a solution for the AIDS puzzle through a science puzzles game ³⁷. Recent studies also suggested the untapped power of using video games to raise pro-environmental awareness ³⁸. The scientific concept and gaming experience can also introduce the life and experiences of a scientist. The interactive nature of video games is perfect especially useful in explaining difficult procedures and methods in science. For instance, the Seshat database is a complicated data collection project that took several years to complete ^{23, 24}. Scientists can understand the data collection process, but gamification of the data collection process might help the public understand science better.

Scientific art: Artists have communicated abstract ideas for generations. However, as discussed above, artistic expression sometimes strays too far away from the scientific truth. It does not mean that art is unable to utilize both. From September 2018 to January 2019, Science Gallery London introduced an art exhibition exploring the concept of addiction ³⁹. Scientists and artists are searching for aesthetics, and there have been great artists who are scientists too.

While the idea sounds simple, its practicality can be challenging, especially with highly technical aspects such as methods. The challenge in using these media also lies in their high entry point. While writing a blog can be done easily, making a video requires scientists to possess various tools and skills. Essentially, while scientists are skillfull in telling a scientific story in the traditional scientific publication format, the adoption of different formats is still uncommon and they are more of add-ons than serious endeavors ⁴⁰.

Moreover, when social media are magnifying misinformation and fake news, the usage of different media needs serious quality control. First and foremost, the Total SciComm strategy should be used on verified and peer-reviewed scientific results. The Total SciComm strategy will only work when the science is sound. This principle must not be compromised. Secondly, different forms of media have their own market functions. Thus, these functions should be utilized to become the second guard against misinformation, fake news, and other issues. For instance, films, video games, or arts have professional reviewers. In platforms with a social media nature like YouTube, the views, likes, dislikes, and the community itself are viable options for safeguarding quality.

 

Using a different case study with public science communication as its focus would help make this discussion better and more complete.

As suggested above, the case of Seshat consists of several elements that characterize how science communicates in the open science era. There is a traditional publication, there is science communication through news coverage, there are preprints, blog posts, social media posts to discuss the issues. Thus, we believe that this is a good example for our paper. The Seshat case presented a good science communication within the community, and it also suggested potential elements for science communication to the public.

Second, and perhaps most distressingly, your concept of Total SciComm is underdeveloped. You’ve chosen to highlight four examples of work already in place in the scientific community and which have been done for years. These are unique and noteworthy examples, but they do not make up a foundation for your theory. Furthermore, you are lacking some critical aspects of science communication that are more common and embedded in scientific communities, such as poster presentations and open peer reviews, the latter of which can add context and depth to the papers they accompany. If you want to pitch the idea of Total SciComm, you could present a process for doing that work or a matrix describing different types of communication. Regardless of what you choose to do, it would help if you described Total SciComm in more depth.

I would recommend a complete overhaul of the Total SciComm section of this paper, with more of a focus on how you would describe this method of science communication and what processes researchers can employ to engage in Total SciComm.

If you would like to keep the focus here on examples of communication methods, then I would recommend reframing this paper around the presence of unique science communication methods and how they can add value to our work. Doing this would require removing your discussion of “Total SciComm” from the paper since it currently has no bearing on the discussion presented.

Since the paper aims to present the new strategy of Total SciComm, we believe it is the core of our paper and we intend to keep the Total SciComm section. However, according to your suggestions, we have revised the section with better connection to the Seshat case. The core ideas of the Total SciComm strategy is also discussed more carefully.

 

Finally, this paper could better explore the existing literature around science communication and methods for doing science communication in an open science setting, specifically.

Comparing your Total SciComm method to other proposed methods for science communication could strengthen your argument and provide you with more context for your proposed work.

We have provided a short literature review to address these issues:

Growing skepticism towards scientific findings makes capturing attention from the public an urgent and serious issue for scientists. The attention will help raise the scientists’ profiles and provide scientists a channel to communicate through scientific ideas. On YouTube and a new form of radio, podcast, the rise of the Intellectual dark web group is a prominent example of an effort for good and effective science communication ¹. However, mainstream science communication is still limited to conventional media like journalism or personal blog. In a world where “information strategy” is becoming more important ^{2, 3}, science communication needs to employ every tool possible.

The rise of social networking sites has coincided with a sharp decline in public trust in science. In 2016, only 21% of American adults reported a great deal of confidence in scientists. The ineffectiveness in communicating scientific truth to the public has traditionally been argued to result from the lack of ability of scientists. However, in a post-truth society ⁴, the core of the problem has now shifted toward the sheer availability, and the contagion of misinformation and disinformation in the modern digital media, argued Iyengar and Massey (2019) ⁵. Improving public communication of scientific truth and combatting fake news are two sides of a coin in the vital battle to improve public epistemology. Society’s failure to agree on a basic set of facts has been deadly, as shown in the COVID-19 pandemic ⁶. While scientists are trained to think in abstract and statistical terms, the pandemic has revealed that humans have not evolved to seek a correct understanding of reality ⁷. Rather, as shown in decades of research in evolutionary psychology and behavioral economics, humans are predisposed by evolution to have weak intuition about risks, to be prone to self-deception, to harbor confirmation bias, among many of our inherent and systemic flaws. Thus, the mission of scientific communication is not merely about presenting cold, scientific findings but also about how to generate healthy engagement with these facts ⁸ and prepare society for future threats with a more robust epistemological stance.

There have been multiple proposals and academic journals devoted to studying science communication (Cite journal Science Communication and the likes). For example, studying the success of Nerd Nite–started as a series of informal scientific talks in a local pub in Brooklyn then spread to more than 100 cities in the world–Tan and Perucho (2018) propose that to reach a wider audience, scientists must bring science to the people rather than let the people come to them. This means to rethink current outreach programs to focus on where the target audiences already are ⁹. Contena (2021) reflects on science’s central mission of public communication and proposes that to communicate a scientific story effectively, a scientist must: 1) investigate the origins; 2) disclose his/her plan and position; 3) inspire the audience and herself; 4) explore positive scenarios; 5) examine unintended consequences; 6) adapt one’s language; 7) and contribute to the democratic process ⁸. In a similar vein, Matta (2020) argues that science communication can be a preventive tool for future pandemics if science is effectively communicated by embracing interdisciplinary research, crafting an accessible narrative, making the science personal, and galvanizing citizen participation in the scientific process ¹⁰.  Indeed, it takes a huge amount of effort to get scientific facts across without backfiring. This means an effective science communication strategy is to understand how to generate scientists’ willingness and how the backfire effect happens. Besley et al. (2018) found that beliefs in public science communication make a difference, and self-confidence in communication skills make scientists more willing to engage. Thus, Besley et al. suggest it is worth showing the scientists results of their engagement efforts to enhance their willingness for public engagement ¹¹. Peter and Koch’s (2015) work on the backfire effect shows that bringing up a scientific myth to correct it might be counterproductive as people have a high likelihood to misremember it as correct. However, if the backfire effect is reduced, people are asked to form an immediate judgment upon receiving the correct information ¹².

As it is clear proposals to improve the effectiveness of scientific communication are diverse, this article proposes a unifying strategy for science communication, which is called Total SciComm or All out science communication. The strategy is total in three senses. First, the core idea of this strategy is to utilize every possible media to communicate every aspect of science. And second, to efficiently explore and use those media techniques, the scientific community must deploy all of its rigors and sophisticated methods to study what makes science communication effective. And third, similar to the Dutch total-pressing football, scientists must acquire more skills and stamina for public engagement to implement the new science communication strategy. The next section will use a debate surrounding a high-profile Nature’s article to illustrate how scientists communicate science in the open-access era. Then, we will explain the Total SciComm strategy in detail and how it can help expand the outreach of science.

 

While we are on the topic of citations, various sources mentioned in this paper, such as social media posts or YouTube videos, are not cited.

You should properly cite those sources to allow the readers to trace back the context of the information presented and to explore the examples discussed.

The sources mentioned in this paper are now cited properly.

Overall, this paper presents some interesting ideas but fails to explore those ideas in enough depth to reach a meaningful conclusion. If you want to propose a new method for sharing scientific information, you need to present more guidance about that method, how it works, and what makes it different from the existing norms in science communication. If you want to explore a single example of science communication and share alternative means of doing that work, you should amend the paper’s abstract and introduction to reflect that context. As it stands, this paper fails to accomplish either goal.

Thank you for your honest criticism of our paper. We understand that what we are proposing is new and there are details that need to be addressed. Thus, your honest criticisms have helped us improve our paper to a great extent.

Once again, we appreciate the hard work and time that you have spent on this manuscript. We hope that the revised paper has met your requirements.

Please accept our sincere thanks for your great contributions to the improvement of the overall advancement of sciences in the world.

Shall you have further comments, we look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of all the authors,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

 

this work tries to highlight the need of engaging the research communities with various sources or platforms that enable the information sharing and the extended discussion of projects/works/ideas. The framework that is discussed here states that such a swift would increase the quality of the feedback that would be obtained, as well as boost further the popularity of new ideas. 

My main issues are the next:

i) the parallelism with the 'total football' is mentioned once in the Abstract/Introduction and one last time during the last Section. I would expect more comments about this connection, since it has been decided to be placed in the Abstract.

 

ii) Although this work is well-written with rare syntax errors, the use of Table 1 does not contribute to a good presentation, while more examples like this presented in Section 2 should be included.

 

iii) Can you support with further information the arguments that are included in Section 3?

 

iv) Why do you believe that the solutions that are described in Section 4 have not still adopted by more scientists? Please clarify.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

We have provided point-to-point responses to the comments of reviewers in our revised version. Please note that in the revised manuscript, the parts that are highlighted in yellow denote corrections to the old text, while the parts highlighted in green have been written anew. Below are our modifications and answers (in bold) to your comments (in italics).

Dear authors,

this work tries to highlight the need of engaging the research communities with various sources or platforms that enable the information sharing and the extended discussion of projects/works/ideas. The framework that is discussed here states that such a swift would increase the quality of the feedback that would be obtained, as well as boost further the popularity of new ideas.

Thank you for your comments. We have revised the paper extensively to expand our ideas.

My main issues are the next:

1. i) the parallelism with the 'total football' is mentioned once in the Abstract/Introduction and one last time during the last Section. I would expect more comments about this connection, since it has been decided to be placed in the Abstract.

We have explained the inspiration with the ‘total football’ more carefully in the paper:

Scientists involved in the Seshat debate have used a wide variety of media to communicate their concerns and responses. Preprints, social media, and blogs were used to spread the message across. Their flexible use of communication tools has provided a lively debate of scientific ideas and sensational findings. While the debate is largely internal, various aspects could be communicated to the public via different media.

In 1974, Netherlands went to the FIFA World Cup final and introduced Total Football (or Totaalvoetbal), a tactical system that has become the identity of Dutch football ²⁹. Total-pressing Football aims to exploit the football field’s space through the fluidity of movements and the interchangeability of players’ positions ^{30, 31}. Its core philosophy has been inherited and continuously evolved by its disciples, such as Marcelo Bielsa or Pep Guardiola ^{29, 32}. The attractiveness of Total Football lies in the combination of both aesthetic and effectiveness on the field. The style requires a deep understanding of positions and movements and perfection in basic techniques.

Inspired by the philosophy of Total Football, we would like to propose a strategy to do science communication calls: Total SciComm. Total SciComm uses every form of the media to communicate sound scientific ideas and engage all scientists in the process in its simplest form. However, just as Total Football demands perfection of the basics, Total SciComm demands a comprehensive understanding of the scientific process, total effectiveness in employing different media types to communicate science, and total honesty in science communication.

 

1. ii) Although this work is well-written with rare syntax errors, the use of Table 1 does not contribute to a good presentation, while more examples like this presented in Section 2 should be included.

iii) Can you support with further information the arguments that are included in Section 3?

We have changed the Table 1 into a figure to present a chronological order of event. While Section 2 and 3 were separated in previous version, we have combined the two section into one because they are directly connected to each other. Thus, the arguments in Section 3 (previously) is now directly connected with examples from section 2:

2. The Seshat debate

In March 2019, Nature published a study named ‘’Complex societies precede moralizing gods throughout world history.’’ The study presented a striking result that when the society developed in a complicated way, the role of moralizing gods became more apparent ¹³. The study resulted from learning about the ‘moralizing gods’ hypothesis with the large historical dataset Seshat. This hypothesis suggested that the belief in being judged by higher power would be a cultural continuation to control a large, complex development society. The scale of Seshat and sensational results instantly caught the public’s attention, with Science or ScienceDaily covered the new findings ^{14, 15}.

Because of the open dataset, other research teams were able to re-analyze the initial results. Just two months after the original research was published in Nature, a critical review was posted on PsyArXiv on May 2, 2019 ¹⁶. This manuscript stated that some factors in the way of data processing and analysis methods had influenced the conclusions of the original publication. In retrospect, moralizing Gods appeared before complex societies. One day after the review of Beheim et al., another manuscript also showed concern about the encryption process to the amount of historical data ¹⁷. Currently, this manuscript has been published in the Journal of Cognitive Historiography ¹⁸.

The corresponding author of the study on moralizing gods responded to the critical analysis of Beheim and his partners shortly after that, on May 5, 2019, with a blog posted on Nature Ecology & Evolution Community ¹⁹. A formal rebuttal is now under review by Nature; the Seshat team has posted a preprint version on SocArXiv with editorial permission ²⁰. On the same day, veteran researchers Harvey Whitehouse and Pieter Francois, Founding Directors of Seshat Databank (with Peter Turchin), also shared their opinions regarding the criticisms on a blog post ²¹.

To respond to the criticism of Slingerland in ¹⁷, a rebuttal and an introductory paper from the Seshat team were expected to be published in the Journal of Cognitive Historiography altogether. However, it was not until almost a year later that all three articles were finally published ^{18, 22, 23}. Back in 2019, with the editorial permissions, the Seshat team posted the Slingerland rebuttal and the introduction of the Seshat dataset on SocArXiv ^{24, 25}.

The sequence of this entire debate is summarized in Figure 1:

 

Figure 1: The chronology of the Seshat debate

First of all, we need to talk about the role of data and statistical analysis in the current literature industry. According to ²¹, data and statistics will help validate many long-standing theories in the humanities and push the boundaries of the disciplines. Data encryption and database construction can help to test historical theories, limit bias, and offer a unique perspective. In addition to the Seshat data, other studies have utilized ageless data sources such as folktales ^{26, 27} and 20th century house façade ²⁷ to provide evidence for cultural phenomena. The open data movement and new guidelines such as the FAIR principles ²⁸ are crucial for this trend to continue and

At the same time, datasets, collection methods, and data analysis are also widely deposited to Open Science Framework, Harvard Dataverse, Zenodo, and other repositories, allowing scientists to examine research results. Two critical reviews, respectively led by Bret Beheim and Edward Slingerland ^{16, 17} are prime examples. They meticulously examined the process of data encryption and database construction to refute Seshat’s research results.

To ensure the progress, they also took advantage of the preprints system to bring their concerns to the public as quickly as possible. The rebuttal of the original research authors was also posted on the blog site for the prompt response. However, the dispersion of manuscripts on different systems was also confusing for readers. It is even possible to create the impression that the results of the unapproved preprint are accurate. Therefore, the Seshat research team authors also appealed to people to wait until their rebuttal was officially published.

Besides the preprints system or blog sites, social networks like Twitter are also used to share formal critical articles, help researchers give some direct perspectives and directly address the subject of exchange. On Twitter, researcher Patrick Savage also made his point about this debate: a highly constructive dialogue representing the open science age ²⁷. Chris Kavanagh, a cognitive anthropologist at the University of Oxford, also appreciates the scientists’ spirit of communication and frank criticism ²⁸. When posting on Twitter about the Seshat group’s responses on SocArXiv, author Patrick Savage has directly tagged other scientists into his post. Many scientists even made their assessments on Twitter, such as researcher Richard McElreath’s graph of moral deities based on Seshat data ²⁹.

 

1. iv) Why do you believe that the solutions that are described in Section 4 have not still adopted by more scientists? Please clarify.

We have discussed this aspect more carefully. Scientists, generally, communicate through the traditional written and, occasionally, verbal means. However, utilizing video games, films or arts means touching upon a new territory. This takes time, which has come a luxury nowadays. Therefore, even though there are people have been working with new media, they are still sparse:

While the idea sounds simple, its practicality can be challenging, especially with highly technical aspects such as methods. The challenge in using these media also lies in their high entry point. While writing a blog can be done easily, making a video requires scientists to possess various tools and skills. Essentially, while scientists are skillfull in telling a scientific story in the traditional scientific publication format, the adoption of different formats is still uncommon and they are more of add-ons than serious endeavors ⁴⁰.

Moreover, when social media are magnifying misinformation and fake news, the usage of different media needs serious quality control. First and foremost, the Total SciComm strategy should be used on verified and peer-reviewed scientific results. The Total SciComm strategy will only work when the science is sound. This principle must not be compromised. Secondly, different forms of media have their own market functions. Thus, these functions should be utilized to become the second guard against misinformation, fake news, and other issues. For instance, films, video games, or arts have professional reviewers. In platforms with a social media nature like YouTube, the views, likes, dislikes, and the community itself are viable options for safeguarding quality.

 

Once again, we appreciate the hard work and time that you have spent on this manuscript. We hope that the revised paper has met your requirements.

Please accept our sincere thanks for your great contributions to the improvement of the overall advancement of sciences in the world.

Shall you have further comments, we look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of all the authors,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

It is an interesting paper, and I liked reading it. It is a nice contribution to the discussion on open science and the future of academic communication and publishing. But it seems rather an opinion paper than a regular research paper.

My major concerns are

(1) The lack of distinction of different types of publications and different kinds of communication channels. There are evident differences, regarding evaluation (review), content, length, purpose, audience etc. You can't ignore these differences. Of course, you can say that these differences are not important for scientific communication; but in this case, you must say it in an explicit way and explain why.

(2) The second concern is about the value of scientific communication. As presented in this paper (for instance, in section 5), it seems that scientific research results and opinions have the same value. I am not sure that this reflects the authors' personal conviction. Personally, I am very uneasy with this - what people say on social media about Covid-19, vaccination, HCQ and so on has not the same value than an article in The Lancet, Nature or the NEJM. Science is not just a "debate of opinions". This should be clarified.

(3) I am not sure soccer is a good illustration or example for academic work. But even so - you say that the Dutch team lost because of this "total Football" approach. So why should TotalSciComm by more succesful? What makes you think that "total communication" should be more efficient for the scientific debate than tradition academic communication? How do you define efficiency? 

Two other details : Debate, dialogue and discussion should not be used as synomyms, it is not the same thing. And I think the very last paragraphs introduces new ideas (transparency, integrity/retractions) and should simply be skipped. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

We have provided point-to-point responses to the comments of reviewers in our revised version. Please note that in the revised manuscript, the parts that are highlighted in yellow denote corrections to the old text, while the parts highlighted in green have been written anew. Below are our modifications and answers (in bold) to your comments (in italics).

It is an interesting paper, and I liked reading it. It is a nice contribution to the discussion on open science and the future of academic communication and publishing. But it seems rather an opinion paper than a regular research paper.

Thank you for your comments. The paper is indeed an opinion paper. We submitted it under the Communication paper type rather than a typical researcher paper. Thus, the paper aims to continue the dialogue about open science and academic communication, while also attempt to initiate a new discussion regarding the issues.

My major concerns are

(1) The lack of distinction of different types of publications and different kinds of communication channels. There are evident differences, regarding evaluation (review), content, length, purpose, audience etc. You can't ignore these differences. Of course, you can say that these differences are not important for scientific communication; but in this case, you must say it in an explicit way and explain why.

We have acknowledged the difference between communications, and the vast difference can be a reason for why scientists have not using these media more widely. However, the difference also provided different ways to present ideas.

These media were all included in Figure 2. However, we argue that there are other media that scientists should also utilize. The main goal is to bring science to a wide range of audiences, including scientists, policymakers, and the public. The differences in means of communications provides scientists with more ways to explain their ideas and results, and, to reach the audiences. For examples:

…

While the idea sounds simple, its practicality can be challenging, especially with highly technical aspects such as methods. The challenge in using these media also lies in their high entry point. While writing a blog can be done easily, making a video requires scientists to possess various tools and skills. Essentially, while scientists are skillfull in telling a scientific story in the traditional scientific publication format, the adoption of different formats is still uncommon and they are more of add-ons than serious endeavors ⁴⁹. The difference of different media can prevent scientists from using them, but they can also offer unique strengths to communicate different aspects of science.

 

(2) The second concern is about the value of scientific communication. As presented in this paper (for instance, in section 5), it seems that scientific research results and opinions have the same value. I am not sure that this reflects the authors' personal conviction. Personally, I am very uneasy with this - what people say on social media about Covid-19, vaccination, HCQ and so on has not the same value than an article in The Lancet, Nature or the NEJM. Science is not just a "debate of opinions". This should be clarified.

We wanted to clarified that we do not endorse science communications as a mere presentation of one’s opinions. We expect the science communication to be based on verified scientific publications. And the means of communication contributes different paths to reach the audiences.

Moreover, when social media are magnifying misinformation and fake news, the usage of different media needs serious quality control. First and foremost, the Total SciComm strategy should be used on verified and peer-reviewed scientific results. The Total SciComm strategy will only work when the science is sound. This principle must not be compromised. Secondly, different forms of media have their own market functions. Thus, these functions should be utilized to become the second guard against misinformation, fake news, and other issues. For instance, films, video games, or arts have professional reviewers. In platforms with a social media nature like YouTube, the views, likes, dislikes, and the community itself are viable options for safeguarding quality.

 

(3) I am not sure soccer is a good illustration or example for academic work. But even so - you say that the Dutch team lost because of this "total Football" approach. So why should TotalSciComm by more succesful? What makes you think that "total communication" should be more efficient for the scientific debate than tradition academic communication? How do you define efficiency?

I want to clarify that I use soccer as a source of inspiration for the name Total SciComm. Indeed, more context is needed regarding the Dutch national team and total football. We have provided additional notes on the parallels between Total SciComm and Total Football in the last paragraph of Introduction section.

As it is clear proposals to improve the effectiveness of scientific communication are diverse, this article proposes a unifying strategy for science communication, which is called Total SciComm or All out science communication. The strategy is total in three senses. First, the core idea of this strategy is to utilize every possible media to communicate every aspect of science. And second, to efficiently explore and use those media techniques, the scientific community must deploy all of its rigors and sophisticated methods to study what makes science communication effective. And third, similar to the Dutch total-pressing football, scientists must acquire more skills and stamina for public engagement to implement the new science communication strategy. The next section will use a debate surrounding a high-profile Nature’s article to illustrate how scientists communicate science in the open-access era. Then, we will explain the Total SciComm strategy in detail and how it can help expand the outreach of science.

 

Then in Section 4, we provided more discussions and illustrations for Total SciComm as a strategy and a spirit of Science Communication.

Scientists involved in the Seshat debate have used a wide variety of media to communicate their concerns and responses. Preprints, social media, and blogs were used to spread the message across. Their flexible use of communication tools has provided a lively debate of scientific ideas and sensational findings. While the debate is largely internal, various aspects could be communicated to the public via different media.

In 1974, Netherlands went to the FIFA World Cup final and introduced Total Football (or Totaalvoetbal), a tactical system that has become the identity of Dutch football ³⁰. Total-pressing Football aims to exploit the football field’s space through the fluidity of movements and the interchangeability of players’ positions ^{31, 32}. Its core philosophy has been inherited and continuously evolved by its disciples, such as Marcelo Bielsa or Pep Guardiola ^{30, 33}. The attractiveness of Total Football lies in the combination of both aesthetic and effectiveness on the field. The style requires a deep understanding of positions and movements and perfection in basic techniques.

Inspired by the philosophy of Total Football, we would like to propose a strategy to do science communication calls: Total SciComm. Total SciComm uses every form of the media to communicate sound scientific ideas and engage all scientists in the process in its simplest form. However, just as Total Football demands perfection of the basics, Total SciComm demands a comprehensive understanding of the scientific process, total effectiveness in employing different media types to communicate science, and total honesty in science communication.

 

As you can see, we want to argue although “Total Football” did not lead to success on the field for the Dutch team at the time, its philosophy has been deeply practiced by generations of clubs, national teams, coaches and players. Thus, similarly, our goals are the expansion of what we are understanding as academic communication, and what it can evolve in the future.

Two other details : Debate, dialogue and discussion should not be used as synomyms, it is not the same thing. And I think the very last paragraphs introduces new ideas (transparency, integrity/retractions) and should simply be skipped.

Thank you for your suggestions. We have revised the usage of debate, dialogue and discussion to make sure that the usage is appropriate for the context. We have removed the very last paragraphs and replaced it with a short discussion of our potential limitations of our paper.

The essay has proposed a new strategy in science communication: Total SciComm. While we have presented the strategy with different examples, we acknowledge that there are still limitations 35. This essay is not an empirical study with empirical evidence. We rely on a specific case and various anecdotal evidence to propose the new strategy. Thus, there might be various aspects that need to be debated, tested, and falsified. Secondly, we used one case to maintain the focus of our paper, as we also tried to ex-plain and discuss the core ideas of Total SciComm. Certainly, the Total SciComm strategy can be illustrated with different examples. Thus, we hope to address these is-sues in future research studies.

Once again, we appreciate the hard work and time that you have spent on this manuscript. We hope that the revised paper has met your requirements.

Please accept our sincere thanks for your great contributions to the improvement of the overall advancement of sciences in the world.

Shall you have further comments, we look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of all the authors,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

After reviewing the changes made to the article and the responses from the authors, I feel that this article is nearly ready for publication. You have clarified both the structure and content of your discussion and responded to my concerns. In fact, I would like to commend you for the edits you have made: they are excellent and address my concerns and those of the other reviewers quite well!

I do still have concerns about the overall merit of your article here. Your "new idea" is not new for those working in open science. We have been pushing for wider and more diverse science communication methods for years. However, the novel description of Total SciComm in comparison to total football is charming and the new figures and clarified examples accompanying the text help to draw out its uniqueness.

You've done a good job pulling together this work, and I feel that you could explore Total SciComm further in blogs, videos, conference presentations, and future publications if you would like to delve into this topic in more depth. In fact, I would recommend it as an example of your communication strategy as well as an exploration of its usefulness in a context like this where the main audience for your work is other researchers.

I do not have any further comments. Thank you for this chance to review your publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We have provided point-to-point responses to the comments of reviewers in our revised version. Please note that in the revised manuscript, the parts that are highlighted in yellow denote corrections to the old text, while the parts highlighted in green have been written anew. Below are our modifications and answers (in bold) to your comments (in italics).

After reviewing the changes made to the article and the responses from the authors, I feel that this article is nearly ready for publication. You have clarified both the structure and content of your discussion and responded to my concerns. In fact, I would like to commend you for the edits you have made: they are excellent and address my concerns and those of the other reviewers quite well!

Thank you for your approval of our revision. We are happy to hear that you find the revised version adequate and successfully address the reviewers’ concerns.

I do still have concerns about the overall merit of your article here. Your "new idea" is not new for those working in open science. We have been pushing for wider and more diverse science communication methods for years. However, the novel description of Total SciComm in comparison to total football is charming and the new figures and clarified examples accompanying the text help to draw out its uniqueness.

We acknowledge that there are scientists who have tried to push for wider and more diverse science communication methods. We have briefly introduced and reviewed some of these methods in the Introduction session. We understand that our proposal might not be a revolutionary idea. However, by giving it a name, and a core philosophy that can be built upon, we hope that it will be able to reach out and ignite the passion of other researchers. As a communication paper, we aims to introduce the concept, and we hope that our paper have successfully convinced you in the possibility of the Total SciComm strategy.

You've done a good job pulling together this work, and I feel that you could explore Total SciComm further in blogs, videos, conference presentations, and future publications if you would like to delve into this topic in more depth. In fact, I would recommend it as an example of your communication strategy as well as an exploration of its usefulness in a context like this where the main audience for your work is other researchers.

I do not have any further comments. Thank you for this chance to review your publication.

Thank you for your encouragement. Indeed, we will try our best to embrace the Total SciComm strategy. We will continue to promote our science with blogs, videos, presentations, and other forms of media. Moreover, we will also continue to explore the usefulness of the Total SciComm strategy in our future studies.

Once again, we appreciate the hard work and time that you have spent on this manuscript. We hope that the revised paper has met your requirements.

Please accept our sincere thanks for your great contributions to the improvement of the overall advancement of sciences in the world.

Shall you have further comments, we look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of all the authors,