We need better and more PopSci by scientists.

Clicks: 109
ID: 280179
2024
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #21 of 24 articles by views in Science (New York, N.Y.)

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Any scientist knows that to be a good scientist, they must conduct thoughtful research; generate high-quality, verifiable results and analyses; and get them into circulation in the scientific community. However, what often goes underappreciated is that this good science will likely remain ignored by most of the world if one doesn't find a way to get it out beyond the scientific community. Unfortunately, when it comes to making our science accessible, we scientists all too often fall short. And that's when the nonscientist public turn to other nonscientists they can understand. Hence, we find ourselves in a world shaped by a lot of misguided, and often erroneous, information about science.
Reference Key
fuentes2024wescience Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Fuentes, Agustín;
Journal Science (New York, N.Y.)
Year 2024
DOI
10.1126/science.adq8026
URL
Keywords
surveillance mexico texas multiple-funnel trap trapping

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.