Thanks for your comment! I could not agree more - alot of insights get lost on the way to the policy makers or communities! I think there is a couple of options:
1) Publishers like Nature Springer go ahead and publish policy briefs based on the (policy-relevant) papers they publish. I guess, publishers would have to hire people who really know how to translate a scientific paper into such policy brief. Researchers are not well trained (and unfortunately often lack the time and incentive to get training)
2) Universities hire "translators".
3) Universities change incentives for researchers (though I think employing "translators" might be more efficient and effective)
4) Researcher use the media more. In my experiences, press articles are often a more effective way of reaching policy makers than through policy briefs. But again, incentives/translators/training needed.
Any plans from Nature Journals to become active on point 1?
Stay tuned.... :)
Thanks for the great post, and for sharing tips on how your group operates and what has or hasn't worked - hopefully it inspires others to follow your lead!
I love this story about seeing that another group was working on something similar, and deciding to join forces to make the strongest paper possible. This should happen more often!
Hi! Just wanted to make you aware that the 'Read the Paper' button links to a different paper.
Best wishes, Adrian Dahl Askelund
Thanks for letting us know - it should be fixed now.
Because I handle paper from across all social science disciplines, at journals that must also accommodate life and physical sciences, I think about differences in disciplinary publishing standards all the time. So this post really speaks to me...and was enlightening, too!
Sorry about our no punctuation in titles rule, but at least the milkshake metaphor will live on here.
I love the timeline! It's easy to forget just how long the research lifecycle can be, and how rejection often plays a part in that. This is a great reminder (especially for early career researchers) of what the process can be like.
I love this story about finding collaboration in unexpected places. And so clever to link your paper's central idea of descriptive norms vs. second-order beliefs to the behavior that brought you and your collaborators together in the first place (this example will surely help non-expert readers understand these concepts!)
This is such a great study (and it makes me a bit nostalgic for my former research life!)