Through the looking-glass: how scientists view journalists and science news

This research aims to better understand the relationship between scientists and journalists from a scientist's point of view, how scientists view science news, and how this view has changed or stayed the same over twenty years. Surveys were sent to scientists to ask their opinions about the role of the media and journalism, their opinions concerning scientist-journalist interactions, and their opinions about the role of scientists. The participants responded with "agree," "disagree," or "I don't know," and were prompted to offer written, long-form explanations as to why they chose their answer. Scientists largely agreed that journalists play an important role in disseminating science news, emphasizing the importance of staying informed and reporting in a matter-of-fact way. This group, all of whom were quoted in The New York Times, trusted journalists and outlets on a case-by-case basis. Lastly, scientists feel that, while it is important to do so, they may not always be the most equipped to discuss their own research with the public. This research allowed an untarnished view through the looking-glass and into scientists' thoughts on the role journalists play in disseminating science news. Although surveyed scientists weigh the pros and cons of journalists' science reporting, there are commonalities on which they all agree: It is critical for both journalists and scientists to accurately and effectively report on research in order to enhance the public understanding of science.Includes bibliographical references

Digitization of data for a historical medical dictionary

What are known as specialized or specialist dictionaries are much more than lists of words and their definitions with occasional comments on things such as synonymy and homonymy. That is to say, a particular specialist term may be associated with many other concepts, including quotations, different senses, etymological categories, semantic categories, superordinate and subordinate terms in the terminological hierarchy, spelling variants, and references to background sources discussing the exact meaning and application of the term. The various concepts, in turn, form networks of mutual links, which makes the structure of the background concepts demanding to model when designing a database structure for this type of dictionary. The Dictionary of medical vocabulary in English, 1375–1550 is a specialized historical dictionary that covers the vast medical lexicon of the centuries examined. It comprises over 12,000 terms, each of them associated with a host of background concepts. Compiling the dictionary took over 15 years. The process started with an analysis of hand-written manuscripts and early printed books from different sources and ended with the electronic dictionary described in the present paper. Over these years, the conceptual structure, database schema, and requirements for essential use cases were iteratively developed. In our paper, we introduce the conceptual structure and database schema modelled for implementing an electronic dictionary that involves different use cases such as term insertion and linking a term to related concepts. The achieved conceptual model, database structure, and use cases provide a general framework for reference-oriented specialized dictionaries, including ones with a historical orientation.publishedVersionPeer reviewe