scientific essay video fom

How to Write a Scientific Essay

Unlock the secrets to crafting compelling scientific essays with our comprehensive guide for school students. From structuring your argument to mastering scientific writing style, discover essential tips for success in academia. Perfect for students navigating the intricacies of scientific writing, our blog offers invaluable insights to elevate your essays to the next level.

Did you think essay-writing was confined to the sphere of the Humanities? Think again! It is crucial for scientists to be able to communicate their ideas, to share their advances in order to find solutions to make the world a better place. Good writing is hugely important to scientists, to present their data and conclusions clearly and logically. Scientists strive to have their work published in journals such as Nature , which publishes cutting-edge peer-reviewed research in all fields of science and technology - how would they do so without being able to write?

How Do I Write Like a Scientist?

Research: The most effective writers will have researched their topic in-depth. Get a subscription to an age-appropriate scientific journal such as the Young Scientist Journal , listen to the Science Weekly Guardian podcast , read journal articles: sciencejournalforkids.org , watch Ted Ed talks on scientific topics.

Plan your essay effectively: Make sure you understand the title, write down definitions of key terms, take notes when reading, only pick key information to include, find examples or evidence to demonstrate findings. Group your main points into a logical structure, writing topic sentences for each paragraph. You could also structure your essay with subheadings - plan the structure for these to ensure your argument flows logically from beginning to end.

Write clearly and concisely: Your writing should be simple and direct, not flowery and overly complex. No metaphors or long sentences.

Be analytical & critical: A successful piece of scientific writing will bring together facts, analyse them and support with evidence. The analysis is the most important bit - do not cite evidence without analysing it, give your opinion, and make sure you link your analysis back to the question at hand.

Diagrams: You may like to illustrate findings with a diagram or two. Make sure they link to your argument, and research how to properly reference them.

Logic & reasoning is almost as important as actual conclusions - demonstrate your logical thinking process in your writing - think through the problem at hand and map out your solution.

How to Plan Your Scientific Essay

When tackling your first scientific essay, it's normal to feel a bit daunted. But fear not! We're here to help you navigate through the process effectively.

Start by breaking down the essay title. Make sure you understand all the key terms involved. This will give you a clear direction for your research. Speaking of research, begin with broad sources like textbooks to get an overview of the topic. Then, delve deeper into more specialised materials as you become more comfortable with the subject.

As you read, take notes. But remember, not everything you find will be relevant to your essay. The trick is to identify the most important information and examples that support your argument . This requires some skill in discernment.

When it comes to actually starting your essay, don't feel pressured to begin at the beginning. Sometimes, it's easier to tackle the middle sections first, where the structure is clearer. You can always circle back to the introduction and conclusion later.

Here are some key points to think about during the planning stage:

Start with broad research sources like textbooks to gain an overview of the topic.

Progress to more specialised materials as comfort with the subject increases.

Take concise notes while reading, focusing on information relevant to the essay.

Identify the most crucial information and examples that support the argument.

Begin writing the essay, considering starting with the middle sections for clarity.

Circle back to the introduction and conclusion once the main body is outlined.

Ask essential questions during the planning stage:

Which terms require definition in the introduction?

How will paragraph structure enhance clarity of argument?

What level of detail is appropriate for each section?

Which visual aids will complement the explanation?

What experimental evidence is necessary to support the points?

What key points should be emphasised in the conclusion?

Remember, writing a scientific essay is a process. Take your time, stay organised, and don't hesitate to seek assistance if you need it. Minds Underground’s STEM mentors are able to host tutorial sessions on this if you need! (Contact us here to find out more). With careful planning and attention to detail, you'll craft an essay that demonstrates your understanding of the topic and your ability to analyse and communicate scientific ideas effectively.

Scientific Essay Structure

Here are some tips to guide you on the structure of a scientific essay:

Introduction: The introduction is often the most difficult section to write. Begin with a thesis statement (your key argument in answer to the question), define key words and lay out how your argument will progress through the essay (what will you say in each paragraph?)

Main body: Use subheadings or divide your essay into clearly defined sections with accompanied diagrams as in a scientific textbook. This will make it easier for you to structure your writing and is a common method used by scientists to enhance their essay’s clarity and readability. Subheadings serve as signposts, aiding both you and your readers in navigating through your essay's content seamlessly. Make sure your argument is coherent and has a logical flow from beginning to end. Refer to the question throughout.

Conclusion: Refer back to the title and summarise your argument.

Diagrams: In scientific essays, the inclusion of diagrams is not only encouraged but essential. These visual aids not only illustrate your points effectively, but also streamline your communication process. As the adage goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words," and this holds especially true in scientific writing, where time constraints can be a significant factor, such as in exam conditions. Draw these in pencil, correctly label and fit them into the text of your essay e.g. "Fig 1 shows...". You could take a picture of your diagrams and insert into your essay on the computer. When creating diagrams, ensure they adhere to the following guidelines:

Opt for large-scale diagrams to enhance visibility.

Use pencil for drawing to allow for easy adjustments.

Provide clear titles for each diagram.

Ensure accurate labelling of all components.

If you are a student at school rather than university, using diagrams from other research papers may also be permissible. If you plan to use diagrams from other sources, it's essential to provide proper attribution to the original creators . This includes citing the source of the diagram in your essay or assignment. Avoid using diagrams simply as a substitute for original work or to fill space without adding value to your assignment.

Referencing: Learn how to reference articles and books, it is important to acknowledge sources. Normally these are footnoted in the main body of the essay and recorded in a short bibliography at the end.

Be careful which resources you use - you should make sure your sources have been reviewed by professional scientists and intended for academic study.

Why not have a read through a respected scientific journal like Nature to see how actual scientists format and structure their essays?

Developing Your Scientific Prose: Key Elements of Style

There's a common misconception that academic writing demands complex language and intricate sentence structures. However, the essence of effective scientific writing lies in simplicity and clarity rather than complexity.

Striving for Clarity

Your goal should be to develop a scientific writing style that is clear, concise, and devoid of ambiguity. Scientific writing thrives on precision in terminology rather than convoluted sentence structures.

Guiding Principles

1. Direct Language: Avoid the use of overly complex language and opt for direct and straightforward expression. Precision in terminology is key to ensuring clarity.

2. Conciseness: Trim unnecessary words and phrases to achieve brevity and clarity in your writing. Focus on conveying your message succinctly without sacrificing depth.

3. Logical Structure: Organise your essay in a logical manner, with each section flowing seamlessly into the next. Clear transitions between ideas help maintain coherence and aid comprehension.

Distinguishing Styles

You may have encountered science articles tailored for general audiences in newspapers and magazines. It's crucial to discern between writing for non-specialists and the stylistic requirements for your scientific essays.

Contrasting Objectives

Popular science writers often simplify complex concepts, emphasise broad themes, and aim to captivate readers with engaging narratives. However, as a budding scientist, your objective differs:

Present complex concepts clearly without oversimplification.

Focus on scientific detail rather than historical context.

Utilise annotated diagrams to elucidate your argument.

Employ precise language and avoid unnecessary embellishments.

The Final Check: Ensuring Your Essay Shines

As you near the completion of your scientific essay, it's essential to allocate time for a thorough review before submission. While you may not have the luxury of extensive drafting and redrafting, a comprehensive review can significantly enhance the quality and coherence of your work.

Importance of Reviewing

Before your submission deadline, take the time to read through your essay with a critical eye. Ideally, allow yourself an overnight break between writing and reviewing to approach the essay with a fresh perspective. This pause can help you identify areas for improvement more effectively.

Key Elements to Review

During your review, focus on the following key aspects of your essay:

Relevance: Ensure that your essay directly addresses the question or prompt provided. Check that you haven't veered off track or failed to address certain aspects of the question.

Accuracy: Pay attention to spelling and grammar errors, as well as factual inaccuracies. Clear and concise language enhances the readability and credibility of your essay.

Coherence and Logic: Evaluate the overall flow and organisation of your argument. Ensure that each paragraph builds upon the previous one and that your ideas are presented in a logical sequence.

Evidence and Support: Assess whether your argument is adequately supported by relevant and credible evidence. Make sure that you have cited sources appropriately and integrated evidence seamlessly into your discussion.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

Be mindful of common pitfalls that can undermine the effectiveness of your essay:

Misinterpreting the Question: Double-check that you have accurately interpreted the question and provided a focused response. Avoid tangential discussions or addressing only part of the question.

Lack of Focus: Resist the temptation to stray from the main argument or delve into unrelated topics. Stay focused on addressing the specific question at hand.

Insufficient Evidence: Ensure that you have provided enough evidence to support your claims and arguments. Avoid making unsupported assertions or relying solely on anecdotal evidence.

Final Thoughts

Thorough planning and careful review are essential steps in crafting a successful scientific essay. By dedicating time to review and refine your work, you can maximise its clarity, coherence, and effectiveness. Remember, the goal is not just to submit an essay but to present a compelling and well-supported argument that demonstrates your understanding of the subject matter. With diligent review and attention to detail, your essay will shine brightly among your peers!

The Rise in Hacking & Fake News - Is Social Media Worth It?

The ever-advancing nature of medicine: new treatments for matters of the heart.

Browse Course Material

Course info.

• Karen Boiko

Departments

• Comparative Media Studies/Writing

As Taught In

• Academic Writing
• Creative Writing
• Nonfiction Prose

Learning Resource Types

The science essay, course description.

You are leaving MIT OpenCourseWare

How to Write a Scientific Essay

When writing any essay it’s important to always keep the end goal in mind. You want to produce a document that is detailed, factual, about the subject matter and most importantly to the point.

Writing scientific essays will always be slightly different to when you write an essay for say English Literature . You need to be more analytical and precise when answering your questions. To help achieve this, you need to keep three golden rules in mind.

• Analysing the question, so that you know exactly what you have to do

Planning your answer

• Writing the essay

Now, let’s look at these steps in more detail to help you fully understand how to apply the three golden rules.

Analysing the question

• Start by looking at the instruction. Essays need to be written out in continuous prose. You shouldn’t be using bullet points or writing in note form.
• If it helps to make a particular point, however, you can use a diagram providing it is relevant and adequately explained.
• Look at the topic you are required to write about. The wording of the essay title tells you what you should confine your answer to – there is no place for interesting facts about other areas.

The next step is to plan your answer. What we are going to try to do is show you how to produce an effective plan in a very short time. You need a framework to show your knowledge otherwise it is too easy to concentrate on only a few aspects.

For example, when writing an essay on biology we can divide the topic up in a number of different ways. So, if you have to answer a question like ‘Outline the main properties of life and system reproduction’

The steps for planning are simple. Firstly, define the main terms within the question that need to be addressed. Then list the properties asked for and lastly, roughly assess how many words of your word count you are going to allocate to each term.

Writing the Essay

The final step (you’re almost there), now you have your plan in place for the essay, it’s time to get it all down in black and white. Follow your plan for answering the question, making sure you stick to the word count, check your spelling and grammar and give credit where credit’s (always reference your sources).

How Tutors Breakdown Essays

An exceptional essay

• reflects the detail that could be expected from a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of relevant parts of the specification
• is free from fundamental errors
• maintains appropriate depth and accuracy throughout
• includes two or more paragraphs of material that indicates greater depth or breadth of study

A good essay

An average essay

• contains a significant amount of material that reflects the detail that could be expected from a knowledge and understanding of relevant parts of the specification.

In practice this will amount to about half the essay.

• is likely to reflect limited knowledge of some areas and to be patchy in quality
• demonstrates a good understanding of basic principles with some errors and evidence of misunderstanding

A poor essay

• contains much material which is below the level expected of a candidate who has completed the course
• Contains fundamental errors reflecting a poor grasp of basic principles and concepts

Privacy Overview

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Biology library

Course: biology library   >   unit 1, the scientific method.

• Controlled experiments
• The scientific method and experimental design

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Video transcript

• Top Courses
• Online Degrees
• Find your New Career
• Join for Free

How to Create a Video Essay for Your College Application

Some colleges may accept a video essay in lieu of the traditional written essay as part of the college application process.

A video essay serves as a personal introduction on a college application. As a modern trend in the application process , some colleges and universities allow prospective students to submit a video essay, either in the place of the traditional written essay or, sometimes, as a separate element of the application packet.

With a video essay, you can naturally highlight your personality while providing the decision-makers with a glimpse into your world. You have the power to present yourself in your best light— literally —in a more personal medium than the regular written word.

What was once limited to art and design schools is now part of the normal process for schools like theUniversity of Chicago and Goucher College in Baltimore, Maryland. This modern twist on essays allows students to express themselves in a way that was once reserved for social media.

To impress the college admissions representatives of your chosen school, take the proper measures when planning. When preparing your video, give plenty of forethought to make your best first impression.

Learn more: How to Write a Personal Statement

How to make a video essay

Verify how long the video can run; this should be listed in each of your institutions’ requirements. For example, the University of Chicago allows videos of up to two minutes. Stay within the university’s range to be considered. The challenge is to focus on your presentation and choose your words wisely.

1. Choose a topic.

Next, decide on the topic of the video. Some schools may invite you to discuss a particular topic, and others will want the video essay to serve as a personal introduction in place of an interview.

If the video serves as an interview, include the answers to the following questions: 

Why do you wish to attend this specific school?

What will you bring to the college campus?

What will you do when you arrive?

Overall, you can use the video to show why you’ll be a natural fit at the school.

Read more: What Should I Major In? 5 Things to Evaluate

2. Create an outline and script.

Show off your production skills, but don’t overextend yourself. University representatives will focus on various aspects of your video in addition to its production. Plan your talking points, create a script, and practice by recording yourself multiple times before finally hitting the send button.

A video script is different from a written essay . Make a logically organized list of the topics you want to cover in a way that allows you to speak naturally and comfortably at the camera. Use the outline to guide you as you record in lieu of memorizing a script.

Record yourself with your phone’s camera, and practice the presentation repeatedly until you feel comfortable. Time yourself to stay within the time limit predefined by the college or university you're applying to. Once you feel satisfied with your script, you’ll be ready for the next step.

3. Use imagery and audio files.

Think about the scene you are depicting in the video. Verify your background. If you’re in your bedroom, for example, make sure it’s tidy and clean. Display things that visibly render your interests, such as a trophy from a swim meet or a stack of your favorite nonfiction books.

You can also film your video in a nearby park or landmark to represent your interests and make good use of the natural lighting. Use the setting to reveal a part of your personality and gain the interest of your college admissions representative. 

Along with video of you talking, you may wish to include additional images, video, and audio files that go along with your message. Collect all your content first before initiating the editing process.

4. Upload files into editing software.

Demonstrate your presentation skills by doing more than one take of your video and editing them to create a polished final cut. For this, you can use any of the trusted free editing software, including iMovie and Lightworks, which are typically user-friendly. You can drag and drop any file you upload and add sound and visual effects as you edit your content.

For tutorials on new software, look for relevant courses on Coursera like Mastering Final Cut Pro , where you’ll learn skills to make your video look professional.

Keep your post-production simple since you will principally be ranked on the content of your video rather than the graphics and transitions, that is unless you’re applying to become a videography student.

5. Share or submit your work.

Follow the submission guidelines described in the university’s application process to ensure you meet all requirements. You may only need to submit a link to your video upload from a commonly used video-sharing website.

If such is the case, upload your completed video essay for free on popular video-sharing platforms like Vimeo or YouTube. Once you’ve uploaded your video to your preferred site, you will have the option to copy a shareable link. Before you send the link, test it on your computer or phone to make sure it leads to your video.

Use the Common App to submit your essay.

Many high school juniors and seniors are familiar with the Common App , which is used by hundreds of colleges and universities to streamline the process of application. For the 2021-2022 school year, there were seven different essay prompts that you could choose from for the traditional written essay.

For some institutions, you may have the option to submit your essay through the Common App. You may also be able to submit a video essay in place of a written essay or as its complement. You’ll need to research and follow the directions of the institution you’re applying to.

Take note of these best practices of video production to make sure your video is both memorable and favorable.

Videography tips for success 

Apply your top-notch creativity in this nontraditional medium to produce your video essay. Discuss ideas for your video with a guidance counselor, parent, or trusted teacher. Ask them for feedback to make sure the message resonates properly.

Reach for success in these other ways:

Have good lighting and sound: Avoid distracting the viewer with shadows, cluttered backgrounds, or loud background noises. Sit near a window to use natural sunlight and prevent a washed-out appearance.

Dress for success: Wear a presentable outfit like you would for an in-person interview. Aim for business or business casual attire, tidy hair, and positive body language. This will improve your confidence as well as send the message that you’re serious about this application.

Answer questions directly: If the school asks specific questions on their application process or has prompts that need to be included in your video essay, make sure to directly provide the answers to each of them. Avoid getting carried away during the creative process.Write the questions and timestamp of the video where they’re answered.

Be yourself : Perhaps one of the most important video tips is to be authentic and relaxed. Review your script and practice repeatedly so you can naturally express yourself without reading it. Give yourself plenty of time to complete the project, and remember to meet the submission deadline.

Express yourself: Interviewing Skills to Benefit Your Career

Practice your presentation skills and increase your confidence before working on your video essay with the following courses from top universities, available on Coursera: 

Effective Communication: Writing, Design, and Presentation Specialization

Storytelling and influencing: Communicate with impact

Speaking Skills for University Success

Speak English Professionally: In Person, Online & On the Phone

Keep reading

Coursera staff.

Editorial Team

Coursera’s editorial team is comprised of highly experienced professional editors, writers, and fact...

This content has been made available for informational purposes only. Learners are advised to conduct additional research to ensure that courses and other credentials pursued meet their personal, professional, and financial goals.

Science Essay

Learn How to Write an A+ Science Essay

11 min read

People also read

150+ Engaging Science Essay Topics To Hook Your Readers

Read 13 Impressive Science Essay Examples And Get Inspired

Science Fiction Essay: Examples & Easy Steps Guide

Essay About Science and Technology| Tips & Examples

Essay About Science in Everyday Life - Samples & Writing Tips

Check Out 5 Impressive Essay About Science Fair Examples

Did you ever imagine that essay writing was just for students in the Humanities? Well, think again! 

For science students, tackling a science essay might seem challenging, as it not only demands a deep understanding of the subject but also strong writing skills. 

However, fret not because we've got your back!

With the right steps and tips, you can write an engaging and informative science essay easily!

This blog will take you through all the important steps of writing a science essay, from choosing a topic to presenting the final work.

So, let's get into it!

• 1. What Is a Science Essay?
• 2. How To Write a Science Essay?
• 3. How to Structure a Science Essay?
• 4. Science Essay Examples
• 5. How to Choose the Right Science Essay Topic
• 6. Science Essay Topics
• 7. Science Essay Writing Tips

What Is a Science Essay?

A science essay is an academic paper focusing on a scientific topic from physics, chemistry, biology, or any other scientific field.

Science essays are mostly expository. That is, they require you to explain your chosen topic in detail. However, they can also be descriptive and exploratory.

A descriptive science essay aims to describe a certain scientific phenomenon according to established knowledge.

On the other hand, the exploratory science essay requires you to go beyond the current theories and explore new interpretations.

So before you set out to write your essay, always check out the instructions given by your instructor. Whether a science essay is expository or exploratory must be clear from the start. Or, if you face any difficulty, you can take help from a science essay writer as well. 

Moreover, check out this video to understand scientific writing in detail.

Now that you know what it is, let's look at the steps you need to take to write a science essay. 

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

How To Write a Science Essay?

Writing a science essay is not as complex as it may seem. All you need to do is follow the right steps to create an impressive piece of work that meets the assigned criteria.

Here's what you need to do:

Choose Your Topic

A good topic forms the foundation for an engaging and well-written essay. Therefore, you should ensure that you pick something interesting or relevant to your field of study. 

To choose a good topic, you can brainstorm ideas relating to the subject matter. You may also find inspiration from other science essays or articles about the same topic.

Conduct Research

Once you have chosen your topic, start researching it thoroughly to develop a strong argument or discussion in your essay. 

Make sure you use reliable sources and cite them properly . You should also make notes while conducting your research so that you can reference them easily when writing the essay. Or, you can get expert assistance from an essay writing service to manage your citations. 

Create an Outline

A good essay outline helps to organize the ideas in your paper. It serves as a guide throughout the writing process and ensures you don’t miss out on important points.

An outline makes it easier to write a well-structured paper that flows logically. It should be detailed enough to guide you through the entire writing process.

However, your outline should be flexible, and it's sometimes better to change it along the way to improve your structure.

Start Writing

Once you have a good outline, start writing the essay by following your plan.

The first step in writing any essay is to draft it. This means putting your thoughts down on paper in a rough form without worrying about grammar or spelling mistakes.

So begin your essay by introducing the topic, then carefully explain it using evidence and examples to support your argument.

Don't worry if your first draft isn't perfect - it's just the starting point!

Proofread & Edit

After finishing your first draft, take time to proofread and edit it for grammar and spelling mistakes.

Proofreading is the process of checking for grammatical mistakes. It should be done after you have finished writing your essay.

Editing, on the other hand, involves reviewing the structure and organization of your essay and its content. It should be done before you submit your final work.

Both proofreading and editing are essential for producing a high-quality essay. Make sure to give yourself enough time to do them properly!

After revising the essay, you should format it according to the guidelines given by your instructor. This could involve using a specific font size, page margins, or citation style.

Most science essays are written in Times New Roman font with 12-point size and double spacing. The margins should be 1 inch on all sides, and the text should be justified.

In addition, you must cite your sources properly using a recognized citation style such as APA , Chicago , or Harvard . Make sure to follow the guidelines closely so that your essay looks professional.

Following these steps will help you create an informative and well-structured science essay that meets the given criteria.

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

How to Structure a Science Essay?

A basic science essay structure includes an introduction, body, and conclusion. 

Let's look at each of these briefly.

• Introduction

Your essay introduction should introduce your topic and provide a brief overview of what you will discuss in the essay. It should also state your thesis or main argument.

For instance, a thesis statement for a science essay could be, 

"The human body is capable of incredible feats, as evidenced by the many athletes who have competed in the Olympic games."

The body of your essay will contain the bulk of your argument or discussion. It should be divided into paragraphs, each discussing a different point.

For instance, imagine you were writing about sports and the human body. 

Your first paragraph can discuss the physical capabilities of the human body. 

The second paragraph may be about the physical benefits of competing in sports. 

Similarly, in the third paragraph, you can present one or two case studies of specific athletes to support your point. 

Once you have explained all your points in the body, it’s time to conclude the essay.

Your essay conclusion should summarize the main points of your essay and leave the reader with a sense of closure.

In the conclusion, you reiterate your thesis and sum up your arguments. You can also suggest implications or potential applications of the ideas discussed in the essay. 

By following this structure, you will create a well-organized essay.

Check out a few example essays to see this structure in practice.

Science Essay Examples

A great way to get inspired when writing a science essay is to look at other examples of successful essays written by others. 

Here are some examples that will give you an idea of how to write your essay.

Science Essay About Genetics - Science Essay Example

Environmental Science Essay Example | PDF Sample

The Science of Nanotechnology

Science, Non-Science, and Pseudo-Science

The Science Of Science Education

Science in our Daily Lives

Short Science Essay Example

Let’s take a look at a short science essay: 

Want to read more essay examples? Here, you can find more science essay examples to learn from.

How to Choose the Right Science Essay Topic

Choosing the right science essay topic is a critical first step in crafting a compelling and engaging essay. Here's a concise guide on how to make this decision wisely:

• Consider Your Interests: Start by reflecting on your personal interests within the realm of science. Selecting a topic that genuinely fascinates you will make the research and writing process more enjoyable and motivated.
• Relevance to the Course: Ensure that your chosen topic aligns with your course or assignment requirements. Read the assignment guidelines carefully to understand the scope and focus expected by your instructor.
• Current Trends and Issues: Stay updated with the latest scientific developments and trends. Opting for a topic that addresses contemporary issues not only makes your essay relevant but also demonstrates your awareness of current events in the field.
• Narrow Down the Scope: Science is vast, so narrow your topic to a manageable scope. Instead of a broad subject like "Climate Change," consider a more specific angle like "The Impact of Melting Arctic Ice on Global Sea Levels."
• Available Resources: Ensure that there are sufficient credible sources and research materials available for your chosen topic. A lack of resources can hinder your research efforts.
• Discuss with Your Instructor: If you're uncertain about your topic choice, don't hesitate to consult your instructor or professor. They can provide valuable guidance and may even suggest specific topics based on your academic goals.

Science Essay Topics

Choosing an appropriate topic for a science essay is one of the first steps in writing a successful paper.

Here are a few science essay topics to get you started:

• How space exploration affects our daily lives?
• How has technology changed our understanding of medicine?
• Are there ethical considerations to consider when conducting scientific research?
• How does climate change affect the biodiversity of different parts of the world?
• How can artificial intelligence be used in medicine?
• What impact have vaccines had on global health?
• What is the future of renewable energy?
• How do we ensure that genetically modified organisms are safe for humans and the environment?
• The influence of social media on human behavior: A social science perspective
• What are the potential risks and benefits of stem cell therapy?

Important science topics can cover anything from space exploration to chemistry and biology. So you can choose any topic according to your interests!

Need more topics? We have gathered 100+ science essay topics to help you find a great topic!

Continue reading to find some tips to help you write a successful science essay. 

Science Essay Writing Tips

Once you have chosen a topic and looked at examples, it's time to start writing the science essay.

Here are some key tips for a successful essay:

• Research thoroughly

Make sure you do extensive research before you begin writing your paper. This will ensure that the facts and figures you include are accurate and supported by reliable sources.

• Use clear language

Avoid using jargon or overly technical language when writing your essay. Plain language is easier to understand and more engaging for readers.

• Referencing

Always provide references for any information you include in your essay. This will demonstrate that you acknowledge other people's work and show that the evidence you use is credible.

Make sure to follow the basic structure of an essay and organize your thoughts into clear sections. This will improve the flow and make your essay easier to read.

• Ask someone to proofread

It’s also a good idea to get someone else to proofread your work as they may spot mistakes that you have missed.

These few tips will help ensure that your science essay is well-written and informative!

You've learned the steps to writing a successful science essay and looked at some examples and topics to get you started. 

Make sure you thoroughly research, use clear language, structure your thoughts, and proofread your essay. With these tips, you’re sure to write a great science essay! 

Do you still need expert help writing a science essay? Our science essay writing service is here to help. With our team of professional writers, you can rest assured that your essay will be written to the highest standards.

Contact our essay service now to get started!

Also, do not forget to try our essay typer tool for quick and cost-free aid with your essays!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Betty is a freelance writer and researcher. She has a Masters in literature and enjoys providing writing services to her clients. Betty is an avid reader and loves learning new things. She has provided writing services to clients from all academic levels and related academic fields.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Write Like a Scientist

A Guide to Scientific Communication

What is scientific writing ?

Scientific writing is a technical form of writing that is designed to communicate scientific information to other scientists. Depending on the specific scientific genre—a journal article, a scientific poster, or a research proposal, for example—some aspects of the writing may change, such as its  purpose , audience , or organization . Many aspects of scientific writing, however, vary little across these writing genres. Important hallmarks of all scientific writing are summarized below. Genre-specific information is located  here  and under the “By Genre” tab at the top of the page.

What are some important hallmarks of professional scientific writing?

1. Its primary audience is other scientists. Because of its intended audience, student-oriented or general-audience details, definitions, and explanations — which are often necessary in lab manuals or reports — are not terribly useful. Explaining general-knowledge concepts or how routine procedures were performed actually tends to obstruct clarity, make the writing wordy, and detract from its professional tone.

2. It is concise and precise . A goal of scientific writing is to communicate scientific information clearly and concisely. Flowery, ambiguous, wordy, and redundant language run counter to the purpose of the writing.

3. It must be set within the context of other published work. Because science builds on and corrects itself over time, scientific writing must be situated in and  reference the findings of previous work . This context serves variously as motivation for new work being proposed or the paper being written, as points of departure or congruence for new findings and interpretations, and as evidence of the authors’ knowledge and expertise in the field.

All of the information under “The Essentials” tab is intended to help you to build your knowledge and skills as a scientific writer regardless of the scientific discipline you are studying or the specific assignment you might be working on. In addition to discussions of audience and purpose , professional conventions like conciseness and specificity, and how to find and use literature references appropriately, we also provide guidelines for how to organize your writing and how to avoid some common mechanical errors .

If you’re new to this site or to professional scientific writing, we recommend navigating the sub-sections under “The Essentials” tab in the order they’re provided. Once you’ve covered these essentials, you might find information on  genre-  or discipline-specific writing useful.

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, audio-visual tools in science communication: the video abstract in ecology and environmental sciences.

• 1 Centre for Functional Ecology, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
• 2 Department of Education and Psychology, CIDTFF ‐ Research Centre on Didactics and Technology in the Education of Trainers, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
• 3 NOVA School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Lisbon, Portugal

In recent years, the use of videos by the scientific community has evolved continuously. Researchers, communicators, and other players are using audio-visual media to reinvent their stories, to deconstruct complex phenomena and to increase the outreach and impact of their scientific publications. An example of this trend is the video abstract: an audio-visual representation of the key findings described in the written abstract. Much of the research in this area is new and focused on content analysis and classification of online science videos. Furthermore, studies with videos and environmental communication are attached to specific topics like climate change. So far, a small fraction of publications has explored the study of the video abstract, its effects, and its potential, as one general scientific area. This paper provides the first characterization of video abstracts in the areas of Ecology and Environmental Sciences. We identified video abstracts in 29 scientific journals, based on impact, representativeness and visibility criteria. A database of 171 videos, from 7 publishers and 17 different video channels was created. Each video was analyzed for different parameters. The analysis considered not only characteristics of each video, but also characteristics from the corresponding scientific papers. Results indicate that between 2010 and 2018 the number of video abstracts increased sevenfold. Despite this growth, there was no solid strategy for disseminating the videos. While most of them are still associated with classic models, such as documentaries, disruptive formats such as animation are the ones that arouse greater interest. Professional shorter videos (2–3 min in length) showed a significantly higher number of daily views and their papers garnered a higher number of citations per day. This data, combined with future qualitative research, will help to develop a model for validating the quality of an Ecology video abstract and provide new insights into the global study of audio-visual communication of science.

Introduction

Science communication is usually associated to the written press format ( Bentley and Kyvik, 2011 ) and, scientific papers continue to be the most used format in academia to disseminate the research produced ( Jamali et al., 2018 ). However, with the rise of the internet and the science of information technology the way science is communicated has witnessed profound changes. Nowadays, publications can benefit from these new communication tools that go far beyond written papers with graphs and tables ( Rodrigues and Godoy-Viera, 2017 ; Jamali et al., 2018 ). Sharing results through audio-visual resources has gained an important role in this process: video recordings or live events, conferences, school classes, experiments and projects, each method having its own ability to illustrate practical knowledge in a much more effective way ( Plank et al., 2017 ). Indeed, a wide range of audio-visual resources are available nowadays, with increasing adoption by the scientific community; amongst these resources, videos have gained special prominence ( León and Bourk, 2018 ).

Science online videos can be defined as short scientific audio-visual content that aims to reach a wider audience using resources that demystify science features for the general public while keeping its rigor and precision ( Morcillo et al., 2016 ; García-Avilés and de Lara, 2018 ). It is not a standardized communication tool since it is characterized by a great variety of formats and an increasing mix of genres ( Erviti and Stengler, 2016 ; García-Avilés and de Lara, 2018 ).

In this context, the video abstract, the main object of study for this paper, emerges as a relatively new genre in science communication, having been already well defined and described by Spicer (2014) : it is a video presentation of a scientific paper, which communicates the framework of the study, the methods, the results, and the conclusions and future goals. It is the filmed version of the written abstract, i.e., audio-visual summaries of scientific papers ( Berkowitz, 2013 ). Unlike conference and lecture videos, such as TED Talks ( Shah and Marchionini, 2013 ; Sugimoto and Thelwall, 2013 ; Tsou et al., 2014 ), and experimental and protocol videos like the ones published in the Journal of Visualized Experiments ( JoVE, 2018 ; ( Rodrigues and Godoy-Viera, 2017 ), the video abstract allows one to present content in multiple formats: it can be an interview, a documentary, an infographic, a monologue or an overlap of all these formats. The creators of these videos use an array of analogical and digital tools without any specific guidelines ( Plank et al., 2017 ); however, in some particular cases, journal editors have assigned rules and recommendations, and provide production and design tips to establish a defined model for the publication of a video abstract in a specific scientific area. These guidelines differ from area to area and may include technical specifications, review process, copyright, use of English and use of content, structure and tone ( Spicer, 2014 ). Cell Press, Springer Nature, Elsevier, Wiley, IOP Science, IEEE Xplore and American Chemical Society are among the publishers that accept video abstracts as a complement to the published paper ( Plank et al., 2017 ).

Furthermore, some of these publishers have established partnerships with specialized platforms in the production of multimedia content (e.g., Research Square ( Research Square, 2018 )). Through a set of paid services, researchers can see their work come to life in the form of a video abstract (2–3 min in length) or a video byte (1-min in length), using all sorts of techniques and animation. Also, universities and institutes have been promoting courses in science communication to instruct researchers and students on how to produce their videos (e.g., Filmmaking for Scientists, Popular Science Video Workshop, Low Budget Science Film Making Course) ( Plank et al., 2017 ; Angelone et al., 2019 ; Chan, 2019 ). We are moving from a generation of “scientists-turned-filmmakers” to a generation of “scientists-as-filmmakers,” researchers who integrate subjects on film production and directing into their academic training ( Angelone, 2019 ). The growth of such initiatives reflects, in some way, the demand by the scientific community to communicate their research in a visual, modern and appealing way in order to increase the outreach and impact of their scientific publications.

The benefits of using videos as a science communication tool include the ability to describe scientific and complex processes in a more effective way; and the potential to increase research visibility, to decrease the costs of training and experimentation and to foster reproducibility of methods and approaches ( Rodrigues and Godoy-Viera, 2017 ; Jamali et al., 2018 ). While, fifteen years ago the video format had a single distribution channel, i.e., television broadcast, built on a unidirectional model, nowadays, with the advent of the internet, things have changed and video producers can think about universal online distribution, without additional investment, in an increasingly low-cost system ( Granado and Malheiros, 2015 ). Very few scientists are heard outside the television environment and video abstracts can help to change that reality by bringing the message to a wider audience ( Erviti, 2018 ). Also, previous studies have shown that scientific papers coupled with a video abstract are downloaded more and have more citations than papers without such an addition ( Plank et al., 2017 ; Zong et al., 2019 ), and that optimized videos disseminate the scientific content to non-expert audiences in a more clear way, in comparison to written texts ( Putortì et al., 2020 ).

Science video is a complex tool, an hybrid product that, like science communication itself, is based on different disciplines and knowhow, being interconnected with the universe of social networks and their users, who are today’s producers ( Bruns and Schmidt, 2011 ; Welbourne and Grant, 2016 ). Despite the need to create communities, to produce unique and innovative content ( Erviti and Stengler, 2016 ), to work on new narratives ( Angelone et al., 2019 ), to maintain scientific rigor ( Frances and Peris, 2018 ) and to train researchers in these new areas ( Plank et al., 2017 ; Angelone, 2019 ), the use of video-abstracts for those purposes still presents some constraints. In particular, it is important to understand if a video abstract is suitable for all subjects, what models should we use as guidelines to produce a successful video abstract, what is the real effect of video abstracts on research dissemination and learning of sciences, and what are the best approaches for measuring these effects.

In pursuit of this purpose, an inventory of video abstracts present in 29 scientific journals was made, with an overall number of 171 video abstracts being selected, viewed and categorized. We did a general characterization using descriptive and content metrics. Also, we tried to understand what were the most important factors that affect the research popularity, measured by the number of citations per day, value of Altmetric of the scientific paper and number of views of the video abstract. Based on the literature review we examined four content factors—video length, production, format and audio quality—for their influence on research popularity. Understanding the influence of these factors on research popularity will allow the producers to create more effective and more engaging content. This is the first step toward a conceptual framework about video abstracts in Ecology and Environmental Sciences. In the next section, “Ecology and Environmental Sciences under the lens”, we present the reasons on choosing this scientific area; then in “Literature Review” we briefly review the previews works on video categorization, focusing on the content factors chosen for the analysis. In “Design and Methods” we describe the sampling and codification processes, as well as the descriptive and statistical analysis used. The “Results” are divided into five sections—general characterization, video length, production, formats and audio quality—where we do a global description and then analyze the content factors with the research popularity. Finally, in the “Discussion” and “Conclusions” we debate the main findings, point out the research limitations and establish new guidelines for future research.

Ecology and Environmental Sciences Under the Lens

The world’s growing population has led to problems of rapid climate change, over-exploitation of our natural resources, degradation of natural habitats and biodiversity loss. Ecological and Environmental Sciences help us understand these issues, and address some of the biggest environmental challenges that our planet faces. Over the past decades, these issues have cultivated a growing interest in academia, governmental agencies, and the general public. The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 ( European Commission, 2020 ) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development ( United Nations, 2015 ) are goals and efforts that need to be supported by a communication matrix. Concepts such as visual literacy ( Bucchi and Saracino, 2016 ; Krause, 2017 ; Rigutto, 2017 ; Trumbo, 1999 ) go hand-to-hand with others like environmental literacy, ecological literacy and eco-literacy ( McBride et al., 2013 ) to create new tools and new responses to these problems. Moving images can transmit emotions and indorse engagement in the citizens, especially on the environmental areas where the visuals are used to promote behavioral change ( León and Bourk, 2018 ). Studies that explore the visual rhetoric, that try to “understand how images communicate, how they function in a social and cultural environment, and how they embody meaning” ( Margolis and Pauwels, 2011 ), start to show their importance: for example, Finkler et al. (2019) studied the impact of video on changing attitudes and good practices in whale watching. The authors concluded that following the viewing, almost all participants demonstrated their intention to choose a tour operator that promotes sustainable and responsible whale watching practices ( Finkler et al., 2019 ; Finkler and León, 2019 ).

Studies dedicated to environmental videos have focused on specific and current themes such as fracking ( Jaspal et al., 2014 ) environmental activism ( Slawter, 2008 ; Uldam and Askanius, 2013 ) or climate change ( León and Bourk, 2018 ; Allgaier, 2019 ); thus, no work focuses specifically and transversally in the area of Ecology and Environmental Sciences. Given its potential for the production of highly visual video-abstracts, these study areas are extremely relevant for pursuing the goals of this study.

Literature Review

The video abstract raises new questions on evaluating the success of research communication and opens the door to new dynamics. Traditionally, written articles see their impact assessed through the number of citations ( Thelwall et al., 2012 ) and, more recently, through new metrics such as Altmetric ( Altmetric, 2012 ). These can include “citations on Wikipedia and in public policy documents, discussions on research blogs, mainstream media coverage, bookmarks on reference managers like Mendeley, and mentions on social networks such as Twitter” ( Altmetric, 2012 ). It is therefore important to take these two values into account when it comes to the popularity and scope of a written paper. Furthermore, the popularity of videos is directly associated with a series of metrics such as the number of views, viewing time, retention time, engagement, among other metrics. Many of these metrics are available to the public, but others only for internal management by the author of the video, using tools such as YouTube Analytics. Video’s popularity is associated with two kinds of factors: content factors, directly related to the production of the videos, such as length, format, theme, and agnostic-content factors, such as the sharing network and recommendation systems ( Borghol et al., 2012 ; Figueiredo et al., 2014 ). Although this is a dynamic function, the content factors seem to be the most informative and most used to understand what makes a video have more or less impact ( Welbourne and Grant, 2016 ). Most of the studies on online video, are recent and focus on studying these factors that can be altered, changed and modified by the authors, researchers, and producers.

Although most experts agree that online science videos should be brief, visually appealing and easy to see ( García-Avilés and de Lara, 2018 ) it is vital to have an idea of what videos have been made and what factors can be improved. Realizing what kind of content can be effective and popular and who produces it seems to be mandatory questions for the future of the area ( Allgaier, 2019 ). In fact, in the last decade, research efforts have focused on these two major topics. Categorization and content analysis was one of the first types of study to emerge and has been maintained over the years, highlighting documentaries, reports and animations as the most present and most popular formats ( Thelwall et al., 2012 ; Morcillo et al., 2016 ; Plank et al., 2017 ). One of the most recent classifications suggests 18 different formats, divided into two major groups: television formats—videos that were initially broadcast on television and then uploaded online—and web formats—videos produced from scratch to the internet ( García-Avilés and de Lara, 2018 ). Video blogs, TV news stories and TV features or documentaries were the most frequent video formats used on science communication ( García-Avilés and de Lara, 2018 ).

The question of form and content is directly related to the production and its actors. The type of channel, and by default the production contexts, are particularly important when we examine video popularity ( Welbourne and Grant, 2016 ). Léon and Bourk (2018) identifies media companies as producers of more than half of the analyzed videos, in contrast to the scientific institutions that produce much less; however, both are more represented by traditional formats such as news and documentaries ( Erviti, 2018 ). The most experimental and emerging genres are in charge of non-professional users and their entitled User Generated Content (UGC) ( Erviti, 2018 ), content that despite being less numerous is more popular in science communication ( Welbourne and Grant, 2016 ).

In the production process, other elements, adding to the narrative format, have to be taken into account. First, it is important to understand what the ideal length of a video is. The average video length on YouTube is 11.7 min ( Statista, 2020a ). Depending on the category the video length can vary a lot, from 24.7 min in “Gaming” to 6.8 min in “Music” ( Statista, 2020a ). Also, looking at the most popular video content categories that year, we can assume that shorter videos are not the most popular ones ( Statista, 2020b ). So, it’s important to adapt the length of our film to the area, category and target audience. Concerning the sound, recent findings suggest that good audio quality is in the researcher’s or reporter’s interest and that the technical quality of recordings can affect the evaluation of the research ( Newman and Schwarz, 2018 ). The average quality of the audio and the narrator’s voice of popular science videos are good and very good, showing values of production and a certain degree of professionalism on this feature ( Morcillo et al., 2016 ). Scarce literature on the effects of length and audio quality on video popularity and the future research tasks on producing a video abstract lead us to include these two features in our study.

Design and Methods

The first stage of the work involved restricting the research to Ecology journals and ensuring that only journals with a high reach that is the impact factor—a metric that evaluates the frequency with which a paper is cited in a given year or period in a specific journal—were used. Thus, according to the Journal Citation Reports 2018 ( Journal Impact Factor, 2018 ), the top 40 journals of Ecology in terms of impact factor were selected ( Supplementary Appendix A ). The journal with the highest impact factor was “Trends in Ecology and Evolution” (15.938) and the one with the lowest impact factor was “Behavioral Ecology” (3.347). From this selection, only five scientific journals, from the same publisher (Wiley), used video abstracts with their papers and on their video channels. Since this sample represented a set of less than a hundred videos, in a second stage, the research field was extended to Ecology and Environmental Sciences. Thus, 24 extra scientific journals from 6 different publishers (Springer, Springer Nature, Nature, AAAS, Cell Press and New Phytologist Trust) were added.

After that, a thorough search on the webpages of scientific journals and in their video channels was made. No limitations were imposed on the length or the use of still images in the videos, thus including hybrid formats such as the “video article” ( Vázquez-cano, 2013 ), the “audioslide” ( Yang, 2017 ) or the “video byte” ( Research Square, 2018 ) in the definition used for video abstract. All the videos that did not fit this definition were excluded. In a final stage, the research was extended using keywords in search engines, to researcher’s personal pages, social networks and specific platforms associated with the production of science videos such as Research Square. This process resulted in a corpus (database) of 171 videos, from 17 video channels (from YouTube and Vimeo platforms), 29 journals and 7 publishers ( Table 1 ) ( Supplementary Appendix A ).

TABLE 1 . Number of video abstracts by video channel, scientific journal and publisher.

The categorization of the video abstracts ( Supplementary Appendix B ) was based on the grid analysis presented by Morcillo et al. (2016) , on technical bibliography ( Bordwell and Thompson, 2003 ; Vachon, 2018 ) and a pre-analysis of the videos ( Coutinho, 2018 ). Data coding, considering the characterization of each video abstract constituting the corpus, was made manually and was divided into three steps ( Morcillo et al., 2016 ):

(a) video title;

(b) channel name;

(c) number of subscribers of the channel;

(d) number of likes;

(e) number of dislikes;

(f) number of views;

(g) number of comments;

(h) length of the video: measured as the complete duration of the video;

(i) video age: in number of days from the date of publication to the date of data collection;

2 Collection of general metrics of scientific papers associated with the video abstracts:

(a) number of citations;

(b) Altmetric value;

(c) publication date;

(d) number of days online;

(e) scientific field;

(f) country of origin of the first author.

4 Collection of content factors for each video:

(a) production: amateur (a video produced by the author(s)/researcher(s) with limited resources), semi-professional (a video that mixes professional with amateur resources, normally associated to a university or research center) or professional (a video produced by a media company, producer or science magazine);

(b) number of narrators: a specific number or no narration;

(c) gender of narrators: female, male or no gender;

(d) type of narration: first-person narration or third-person narration;

(e) type of thumbnail: a miniature of a frame, designed titles or any other option;

(f) shooting location: exterior locations, interior locations or both;

(g) number of takes used in the film;

(h) shots used: extreme long shot, long shot, medium-long shot, medium shot, medium closeup, closeup, extreme closeup;

(i) video format: animation (video that uses animation techniques, as motion graphics, stop motion or whiteboard animation), documentary (live footage video that presents its themes in a factual and informative way, using numerous clips and different techniques, similar to a tv documentary or reportage), dynamic presentation (video with still images and titles animations, normally with music instead of narration), monologue (video in which the author, improvising or following a script, speaks directly to the camera on a scientific topic) or simple presentation (video that is mostly shaped by still images, narrated like a slide presentation);

(j) intro description: design and characteristics of the opening credits;

(k) outro description: design and characteristics of the opening credits;

(l) additional elements: maps, graphics, diagrams or others;

(m) sound design: the presence of background music, sound effects or others;

(n) audio quality: measured as the narrator's voice quality (good, bad or no narration).

As the initial coding process was carried out by just one person, we decided to strengthen the analysis. Therefore, a group of 30 coders was invited to analyze a representative sample of the corpus. The group had researchers from exact sciences and social sciences, and professionals from audio‐visual, marketing and education fields. The sample of 21 videos (12% of the total) was representative of the main characteristics under study. After the coding, we measured the agreement between the coders using the Fleiss Kappa measure ( Coutinho, 2018 ), for three of the four content factors used in our correlation (production, format and audio quality). The values obtained were all below 0.3 what represents a poor agreement between coders ( Coutinho, 2018 ). To improve reliability, the categories were redefined and reformulated, as described above. A new coding process was led by all the authors of the paper. The key content factors were independently coded, and the values obtained varied between a strong (0.83 for video format and 0.80 for video production) and a good agreement (0.72 for audio quality).

All the links and web addresses from the selected papers, journals, videos, and channels were also collected ( Supplementary Appendix A ).

Descriptive analyses were made for the number of video abstracts per year (from 2010 to 2019), publishers of the scientific journals associated with each video, production, additional elements, shooting location, the number of takes, shots used, intro and outro descriptions, number and gender of the actors/narrators, type of narration and the video format. Generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) were used to explore the effect of production, video format and audio quality (given as narrator’s voice quality) in video length, number of views per day, number of citations per day of the corresponding scientific paper, and Altmetric, including scientific journal as random factor. Because, the variance of the random factor was lower than the variance of the residuals, the random factor was removed and generalized linear models (GLMs) were used ( Bolker et al., 2009 ). A Poisson distribution with a log link function was used in video length and Altmetric, and a Gaussian distribution and an identity link function were used for number of views per day of the video and citations per day of the corresponding scientific paper.

All analyses were performed in R software version 3.0.1 ( R Core Development Team, 2016 ), using the packages “ggplot2” for graphics build-up, “car” for Type-III analysis of variance ( Fox et al., 2012 ), “lme4” for generalized linear models and generalized linear mixed models ( Bates et al., 2014 ) and “multcomp” for multiple comparisons after Type-III analysis of variance ( Hothorn et al., 2016 ).

In Table 1 the number of video abstracts for each video channel, scientific journal and science publisher is given. Of this set, only ten journals have their videos published on their official webpages, in addition to their video channels.

General Characterization

Between 2010 and 2018 the number of video abstracts produced increased sevenfold and the growth rate stayed more or less constant ( Figure 1 ). The small number of video abstracts uploaded in 2019, compared to the previous year, is directly related to the last date of data collection (September 7th, 2019). Wiley is the publisher with the most videos associated (43%), followed by Cell Press (25%) and Nature (13%). Almost half of the studied videos have a duration comprised between 1 and 3 min (25% between 2 and 3 min and 22% between 1 and 2 min). Videos with 4–5 and 5–6 min correspond to 12% and 13% of the cases, respectively. Longer videos account for approximately 19% of the cases and there is a decreasing number of videos with increasing length ( Figure 2A ).

Figure 1 . Number of video abstracts per year of publication (from 2010 to September 7th, 2019).

Figure 2 . Proportion of video abstracts (%) according to the video length (A) , the type of production (B) , number of narrators (C) , type of narration (D) and video format (E) .

Looking at production contexts there is a prevalence of amateur videos (50%), created by the researchers/authors of the work. Professional videos, produced by a media company or producer, comes in second place, representing 38% of the surveyed videos. Videos that mixes professional with amateur resources, defined as semi-professional videos, are the least frequent (12%) ( Figure 2B ).

Almost half of the surveyed videos (47%) mix the use of still images with moving images. Also, the sole use of moving images (33%) prevails over the sole use of still images (20%). The most used additional elements were graphs and maps. In the videos where film shooting is included, the majority is made outdoors (42%) or combines indoors with outdoors footage (45%). Videos shot exclusively indoors are a minority (13%). Furthermore, 85% of these videos have a story with more than three takes, and 66% include the use of more than one shot. The intros and outros of the videos are mainly based on a simple composition of titles or credits, which can appear solo, with still images or with videos.

Most of the voiceover is done by a single narrator/researcher (73%), followed by videos with no narration (12%) and videos with two narrators (10%); videos with three and four different narrators are residual ( Figure 2C ). Regarding the way the story is narrated, the majority of the videos (61%) presents a third-person narrator instead of a first-person narrator (18%) ( Figure 2D ). As for the adopted format, most of the videos tell their story in more traditional ways recurring to the documentary style (46%) or simple presentations (23%). More disruptive formats, like animations (16%) or dynamic presentations (11%), have a small representation, and monologue is the least used format ( Figure 2E ). Finally, more than half of the researchers who narrate the videos are male (57%), while females appear less represented (36%); the joint narration is not so popular (7%).

Video Length

Videos with 2–3 min length presented the highest number of views per day and the respective scientific papers presented the highest number of citations per day (on average) ( Figures 3A,B ). Therefore, there seems to be a clear preference for shorter content, with a tendency for the abovementioned variables to decrease as the running time of the videos increases. Statistically significantly differences were detected among the production types ( χ 2,168 2 = 37.34 ; p < 0.001, Table 2 ), with shorter videos being significantly associated with professional productions; on the other hand, amateur and semi-professional productions are significantly longer, with no significant differences being observed between both production types ( Figure 3C ).

Figure 3 . Video length according to the number of views per day (A) , the number of citations per day (B) and production type (C) . In A and B values are given as mean and standard error of the mean. In C, the lower and upper hinges of each boxplot correspond to the first and third quartiles (the 25th and 75th percentiles) and whiskers extends from the hinge to the largest value no further than 1.5 * the inter-quartile range. Medians are depicted as a horizontal line within the boxplot, means as a gray bullet and outliers as black bullets (for visualization purposes online, some of the outliers are not depicted in the graphic); different letters represent statistical differences at p < 0.05.

TABLE 2 . Statistical results from Generalized Linear Models of the effect of production, video format and audio quality (given as narrator’s voice quality) in video length, number of views per day of the videos, and number of citations per day and Altmetric of the corresponding scientific paper. Statistically significant differences at p < 0.01, are highlighted in bold.

Video Production

Videos with professional ( n = 65) and semi-professional ( n = 20) production presented more views per day on average than the amateur productions ( n = 86), but the differences were not statistically significant ( χ 2,168 2 = 0.22 ; p = 0.801; Table 2 ) ( Figure 4A ). Also, the median values of views per day were lower for videos with semi-professional production in comparison with those with professional production. The same trend was observed for the number of citations per day of the respective scientific papers, with the highest average values being obtained for professional production, but in this case videos with professional production led to a significantly higher number of citations than amateur production ( χ 2,168 2 = 8.00 ; p < 0.001; Table 2 ), with semi-professional productions presenting intermediate values not differing significantly from the other productions types ( Figure 4B ). For the Altmetric value of the publication, statistically significant differences were obtained among the three production types ( χ 2,168 2 = 9.93 ; p < 0.001; Table 2 ), with professional videos leading to statistically significant higher Altmetric values than semi-professional and amateur productions. Amateur productions led to the lowest Altmetric values, and semi-professional productions presented intermediate values ( Figure 4C ).

Figure 4 . Video production according to the number of views per day (A) , and number of citations per day (B) and Altmetric values (C) of the corresponding scientific paper. The lower and upper hinges of each boxplot correspond to the first and third quartiles (the 25th and 75th percentiles) and whiskers extends from the hinge to the largest value no further than 1.5 * the inter-quartile range. Medians are depicted as a horizontal line within the boxplot, means as a gray bullet and outliers as black bullets (for visualization purposes online, some of the outliers are not depicted in the graphic); different letters represent statistical differences at p < 0.05.

Video Format

The formats with the highest average number of views per day were the documentary ( n = 79), simple presentation ( n = 40) and animation ( n = 27), but no statistically significant differences were obtained among video formats ( χ 4,166 2 = 0.40 ; p = 0.810; Table 2 ). It should be noted that simple presentation format presented some outlier values that might have influenced the average values, but presented median values similar to monologue ( n = 6) and dynamic presentation ( n = 19) formats ( Figure 5A ). Statistically significant differences were obtained for number of citations per day ( χ 4,166 2 = 3.34 ; p = 0.01; Table 2 ). Animation and documentary formats are highlighted with the highest average number of citations per day, but significant differences were only obtained between animation and dynamic presentation and between animation and simple presentation ( Figure 5B ). For the Altmetric, statistically significant differences were obtained among videos formats ( F 4, 166 = 2,876.74; p < 0.001; Table 2 ), with animation format leading to higher Altmetric values than the other formats; however, significantly higher values for the animation format were only obtained when compared with the values obtained for dynamic and simple presentations, which are among the lowest ones ( Figure 5C ).

Figure 5 . Video format according to the number of views per day (A) , and number of citations per day (B) and Altmetric values (C) of the corresponding scientific paper. The lower and upper hinges of each boxplot correspond to the first and third quartiles (the 25th and 75th percentiles) and whiskers extends from the hinge to the largest value no further than 1.5 * the inter-quartile range. Medians are depicted as a horizontal line within the boxplot, means as a gray bullet and outliers as black bullets (for visualization purposes online, some of the outliers are not depicted in the graphic); different letters represent statistical differences at p < 0.05.

Audio Quality

Videos where the quality of the narrator’s voice is bad ( n = 28) had a higher average number of views per day than the videos with good ( n = 125) or no narration ( Figure 6A ), despite no significant differences were obtained among the three groups ( χ 2,168 2 = 0.76 ; p = 0.470; Table 2 ). It should be noted that this was probably influenced by some outlier values in videos where the quality of the narrator’s voice is bad as the median value is the lowest one, being even lower than that obtained for videos with no narration ( Figure 6A ). On the other hand, the number of citations per day and the Altmetric value of the corresponding scientific paper showed higher average values when the videos have good narration ( Figures 6B,C , respectively). However, such differences were only statistically significant for the Altmetric value ( χ 2,168 2 = 4.52 ; p = 0.01; Table 2 ). For the number of citations per day, despite the tendency referred above, the values were not significantly different ( χ 2,168 2 = 3.43 ; p = 0.415; Table 2 ).

Figure 6 . Narrator’s voice quality according to the number of views per day (A) , and number of citations per day (B) and Altmetric values (C) of the corresponding scientific paper. The lower and upper hinges of each boxplot correspond to the first and third quartiles (the 25th and 75th percentiles) and whiskers extends from the hinge to the largest value no further than 1.5 * the inter-quartile range. Medians are depicted as a horizontal line within the boxplot, means as a gray bullet and outliers as black bullets (for visualization purposes online, some of the outliers are not depicted in the graphic); different letters represent statistical differences at p < 0.05.

The results of this study highlight the fact that the use of video abstracts in Ecology and Environmental Sciences is a complex and dynamic process. Our corpus presented us with very different approaches toward the production of a video abstract in this area: from a single researcher in his office to professional documentaries, from still images of the fieldwork to ingenious animations, from long presentations to very short explanations. This enormous variety of elements represented a huge challenge on the processes of content analysis and categorization. It is difficult to design a typology that represents such diversity ( García-Avilés and de Lara, 2018 ). Our study provides relevant information to understand how this genre is evolving and contributes to establishing new directions toward more effective audio-visual communication.

The study sample and its detailed analysis revealed a strong dispersion and disorganization of the contents: videos from the same publisher and the same journal are often uploaded on different channels, showing lack of a real communication strategy ( Table 1 ). This is in line with previous studies in the field of video production, that revealed no or small articulation between the different offices of an institution and the various outputs, suggesting that a single and stable language is lacking ( Santos and Santos, 2014 ) and that it is necessary to create a strategy for disseminating videos in an online environment ( Erviti and Stengler, 2016 ). Effective dissemination implies a strategy, that in itself requires contacts, time and money ( Vachon, 2018 ). When a film is planned it is important to include promotion as an independent task and think about it since the beginning. As researchers, the communication can be under our responsibility or be in charge of other professional (e.g., science communicators or journalists on communication offices); the important thing to ensure it is a focused voice, that determines when, how and where. It is vital to collaborate with all the institutions involved in the research (e.g., universities, research centers, research groups, science journals, science centers, newspapers) to upload the video in one unique platform, and spread the word from there. This is particularly important when we want to measure popularity metrics, being more rigorous and reliable if all the data come from one platform.

Despite this disorganization, the annual growth of video production follows the positive trend described, in general, for online scientific videos ( García-Avilés and de Lara, 2018 ) ( Figure 1 ). This evolution demonstrates a growing involvement of the scientific community and its partners with this dissemination tool and represents a clear sign of a growing interest in these new ways of communicating science. Also, although the methodology for surveying the video abstracts in Ecology and Environmental Sciences was based on exhaustive research on the webpages of scientific journals, video channels, search engines, social networks and other relevant platforms, some interesting content may still have passed unnoticed.

Unsurprisingly, most of the video abstracts followed classic models, rooted in television, such as documentaries and reportages ( Welbourne and Grant, 2016 ; Davis and Léon, 2018 ): an individual, indirectly narrating a story or presenting research. It is possible that these specific areas (Ecology and Environmental Sciences) also amplify the use of these formats, once there is a great tradition on nature documentaries, very rooted in popular culture. The dominance of moving images and a certain complexity of production—in the number of takes, in the mix of indoor with outdoor shooting and in the type of elements used—are strong examples of this style. In contrast to what was observed by Erviti (2018) , the bigger expression of amateur videos, and the so-called User Generated Content (UGC), does not represent, in this sample, more experimental content ( Erviti, 2018 ). This probably reflects the need for specific training in these areas ( Plank et al., 2017 ; Vachon, 2018 ; Angelone et al., 2019 ). In advanced courses in the area of science video production, after coming into contact with new ways of storytelling, most researchers opt for these alternatives, instead of the linear narratives they previously were aware of ( Angelone et al., 2019 ). In the eyes of the public, disruptive genres such as motion graphics seem to cultivate greater interest, as reflected in the number of citations per day and Altmetric of the associated papers. However, the more traditional formats and narratives prevail largely. This can also be related to the fact that this kind of expository style is believed more ( Davis et al., 2020 ). Also, the audience of this videos may be an engaged one, with peers and people with a university education, with whom the infotainment style is not so effective ( Davis et al., 2020 ).

With this study, it seems clear that the most recommendable length for video representations of scientific works in Ecology and Environmental Sciences, taking into account the video (given as the number of videos/day) and paper (given as the number of citations/day) outreach, is between two and three min. This average length is also associated with professional contexts. Professional and semi-professional productions also usually led to higher video and paper outreach. This possibly reflects better content dissemination mechanisms (reflected in high Altmetric values), actors with more experience in the field and the establishment of stronger bridges between audio-visual content and written content. Despite the relevance of this data, further research regarding video length ( Welbourne and Grant, 2016 ) and production values, using a larger amount of samples and other variables, such as the impact of video-abstracts in science learning ( Slemmons et al., 2018 ), is needed.

Although previous studies have shown that ensuring good audio quality should be in the researcher’s interest ( Newman and Schwarz, 2018 ), in our case, the quality of narrator’s voice, given by the general audio quality, was not a determining factor for video viewing. However, it had a positive impact on the scientific reach of the written paper, measured as the Altmetric. As it happens with some of the other results, strong conclusions should be viewed with caution, as factors such as the reach and effort that each researcher and journal have invested in promoting its video, variables that are very difficult to measure, may prevail as explanatory variables. For future work, once audio quality is a difficult metric to quantify, we recommend the use of quantitative metrics like the number of words per minute ( Morcillo et al., 2016 ).

Another variable that could help to clarify some of the results we have obtained is the audience retention. This measure tells us how many people are still watching a video during video playback, indicating when viewers stop watching (e.g., YouTube Analytics). Understand the viewer’s interest throughout the video can give us insights into what segments are working well and what sections need to be improved. Also, if the number of views measures popularity, it fails to translate impact or ensure that the content was viewed in its entirety; unfortunately, such data is only available for the authors/owners of the videos. Future research will focus on the production of our own video abstracts in the area of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, and this will enable to evaluate these metrics, allowing us to explore new content data and new visual features. Due to time constraints and research purposes not all the visual components were coded and interpreted. These elements can be explored on a visual rhetoric approach ( Finkler and León, 2019 ), exploring the different elements of the science storytelling, for example creating and testing two different versions of the same video abstract, where only one feature differs.

Furthermore, there is also a series of non-controllable variables that were not taken into account in this study and that can somehow affect the results, including the characteristics of the video channels (number of subscribers) and the scientific papers (number of authors, presence of international co-authors, number of characters in the title and the abstract, number of keywords, references and pages and funding). Future studies considering all these variables are highly recommendable.

This work intends to be the first step in the characterization of video abstracts in Ecology and Environmental Sciences and bring added value to the general characterization of scientific videos. Along with previous works ( Morcillo et al., 2016 ) the intention is to describe and classify the state of the art, working mostly with outreach metrics. However, as the use of video abstracts is still a very recent tool, it still lacks clear and definitive guidelines that sometimes leads to improper use of the type of content considered. Such a lack of theoretical framework inevitably leads to subjectivity not only in the type of content but also in the evaluation process. To fill these gaps, a separate study on creating a validation model for video-abstracts in these scientific areas is under development. We hope that this future instrument of research will allow us to validate some of our coding categories and contribute to establishing a stronger model of an effective video abstract in Ecology and Environmental Sciences.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author Contributions

MF and JL designed the study. MF conducted the main analysis of the videos. JL performed the statistical analyses. All authors participated in scientific discussion and approved the submitted version.

This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciênciae Tecnologia (FCT; Portugal) within the project (UIDB/04004/2020) and through an individual grant to Miguel Ferreira (SFRH/BD/131072/2017).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

Mariana Castro and Sara Lopes are acknowledged for their valuable contribution for the revised statistical analyses, and Sasha D’Costa is thanked for the English language reviewing of the manuscript. Two reviewers are also thanked for the important comments made to the manuscript.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2021.596248/full#supplementary-material .

Allgaier, J. (2019). Science and environmental communication on YouTube: strategically distorted communications in online videos on climate change and climate engineering. Front. Commun. 4, 1–15. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Altmetric (2012). Altmetric: Discover the attention surrounding your research. Available at: https://www.altmetric.com/ .

Google Scholar

Angelone, S. (2019). A new generation of scientists-as-filmmakers: experiences gained in Switzerland. Sci. Commun. 41, 369–377. doi:10.1177/1075547019837620

Angelone, S., Soriguer, R. C., and Melendo, A. (2019). Filmmaking courses for scientists help promote richer alternatives to chronological narratives. Stud. High Educ. 45, 2001–2010. doi:10.1080/03075079.2019.1604651

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5823 (Accessed November 10, 2020).

Bentley, P., and Kyvik, S. (2011). Academic staff and public communication: a survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Publ. Understand. Sci. 20 (1), 48–63. doi:10.1177/0963662510384461

Berkowitz, J. (2013). Video abstracts, the latest trend in scientific publishing. Available at: https://www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/video-abstracts-the-latest-trend-in-scientific-publishing/ (Accessed January 24, 2020).

Bolker, B. M., Brooks, M. E., Clark, C. J., Geange, S. W., Poulsen, J. R., Stevens, M. H., et al. (2009). Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24 (3), 127–135. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008 |

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bordwell, D., and Thompson, K. (2003). Film history: an introduction . 2nd Edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education . doi:10.1006/jmbi.1997.1322

CrossRef Full Text

Borghol, Y., Ardon, S., Carlsson, N., Eager, D., and Mahanti, A. (2012). “The untold story of the clones,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , New York, NY , January 2014 , 1186–1194. doi:10.1145/2339530.2339717

Bruns, A., and Schmidt, J.-H. (2011). Produsage: a closer look at continuing developments. New Rev. Hypermedia Multimedia 17 (1), 3–7. doi:10.1080/13614568.2011.563626

Bucchi, M., and Saracino, B. (2016). “Visual science literacy”: images and public understanding of science in the digital age. Sci. Commun. 38 (6), 812–819. doi:10.1177/1075547016677833

Chan, G. (2019). Low cost film making. Available at: https://www.scienceretreats.com/filmmakingcourse (Accessed February 10, 2020).

Coutinho, C. P. (2018). Metodologia de Investigação em Ciências Sociais e Humanas: teoria e prática . 2nd Edn. Coimbra, Portugal: Almedina .

Davis, L. S., and Léon, B. (2018). Communicating science and technology through online video . Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge , 55–62.

Davis, L. S., León, B., Bourk, M. J., and Finkler, W. (2020). Transformation of the media landscape: infotainment versus expository narrations for communicating science in online videos. Publ. Understand. Sci. 29 (7), 688–701. doi:10.1177/0963662520945136

Erviti, M. C. (2018). “Producing science online video,” in Communicating science and technology through online video . Editors B. Léon, and M. Bourk (Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge ), 28–40.

Erviti, M. C., and Stengler, E. (2016). Online science videos: an exploratory study with major professional content providers in the United Kingdom. J. Sci. Commun. 15 (6), 1–29. doi:10.22323/2.15060206

European Commission (2020). EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing nature back into our lives. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

Figueiredo, F., Almeida, J. M., Benevenuto, F., and Gummadi, K. P. (2014). “Does content determine information popularity in social media? A case study of YouTube videos’ content and their popularity,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 979–982.

Finkler, W., Higham, J. E. S., León, B., Aitken, R., Finkler, W., Higham, J. E. S., et al. (2019). Bridging the void: science communication videos for sustainable whale watching. Int. J. Sci. Educ., Part B 9, 312–326. doi:10.1080/21548455.2019.1671636

Finkler, W., and León, B. (2019). The power of storytelling and video: a visual rhetoric for science communication. J. Sci. Commun. 18 (5), 1–23. doi:10.22323/2.18050202

Fox, J., Weisberg, S., Adler, D., Bates, D., Baud-Bovy, G., Ellison, S., et al. (2012). Package “car” . Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing .

Frances, M., and Peris, À. (2018). “Rigour in online science videos,” in Communicating science and technology through online video . Editors B. Léon, and M. Bourk (Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge ), 64–75.

García-Avilés, J. A., and de Lara, A. (2018). “An overview of science online video,” in Communicating science and technology through online video . Editors B. Léon, and M. Bourk (Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge ), 15–26.

Granado, A., and Malheiros, J. V. (2015). Cultura científica em Portugal: ferramentas para perceber o mundo e aprender a mudá-lo . Lisbon, Portugal: Fundação Francisco Manuel dos Santos .

Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., Westfall, P., Heiberger, R. M., Schuetzenmeister, A., Scheibe, S., et al. (2016). Package “multcomp”. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models . Vienna, Austria: Project for Statistical Computing .

Jamali, H. R., Nabavi, M., and Asadi, S. (2018). How video articles are cited, the case of JoVE: journal of Visualized Experiments. Scientometrics 117 (3), 1821–1839. doi:10.1007/s11192-018-2957-6

Jaspal, R., Turner, A., and Nerlich, B. (2014). Fracking on youtube: exploring risks, Benefits and human values. Env. Val. 23 (5), 501–527. doi:10.3197/096327114X13947900181473

Journal Impact Factor (2018). Journal citation reports . Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate Analytics .

JoVE (2006). Peer reviewed scientific video journal—methods and protocols . Available at: https://www.jove.com/ . (Accessed February 10, 2020)

Krause, K. (2017). A framework for visual communication at Nature. Publ. Understand. Sci. 26 (1), 15–24. doi:10.1177/0963662516640966

León, B., and Bourk, M. (2018). “Investigating science-related online video,” in Communicating science and technology through online video . Editors B. Léon, and M. Bourk (Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge ), 1–14.

Margolis, E., and Pauwels, L. (2011). “Sage handbook—visual research methods,” Social research update . Editors E. Margolis, and L. Pauwels (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. ), 1.

McBride, B. B., Brewer, C. A., Berkowitz, A. R., and Borrie, W. T. (2013). Environmental literacy, ecological literacy, ecoliteracy: what do we mean and how did we get here? Ecosphere 4 (5). doi:10.1890/ES13-00075.1

Morcillo, J. M., Czurda, K., and Trotha, C. Y. R. V. (2016). Typologies of the popular science web video. J. Sci. Commun. 15 (4), 32. doi:10.22323/2.15040202

Newman, E. J., and Schwarz, N. (2018). Good sound, good research: how audio quality influences perceptions of the research and researcher. Sci. Commun. 40 (2), 246–257. doi:10.1177/1075547018759345

Plank, M., Molnár, A. D., and Marín-Arraiza, P. (2017). Extending media literacy education: the popular science video WorkshopIFLA WLIC . Wrocław, Poland: libraries Solidarity Society .

Putortì, E. S., Sciara, S., Larocca, N. U., Crippa, M. P., and Pantaleo, G. (2020). Communicating science effectively: when an optimised video communication enhances comprehension, pleasantness, and people's interest in knowing more about scientific findings. Appl. Psychol. 69 (3), 1072–1091. doi:10.1111/apps.12193

R Core Development Team(2016). A language and environment for statistical computing . Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing .

Research Square(2018). Research Square. Available at: https://www.researchsquare.com/ .

Rigutto, C. (2017). The landscape of online visual communication of science. J. Sci. Commun. 16 (2), C06.

Rodrigues, C., and Godoy-Viera, A. F. (2017). Utilização do recurso hipermediático vídeo em periódicos científicos: estudo do Journal of Visualized Experiments (JOVE). Rev. interam. bibl. 40 (2), 153–164. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=1790/179050877004 (Accessed February 10, 2020).

Santos, S. C., and Santos, C. A. (2014). From education to communication: mapping the use of online video by Portuguese universities. Observatorio 8 (3), 17–37. https://www.scielo.mec.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1646-59542014000300002&lng=pt&tlng=en (Accessed February 10, 2020).

Shah, C., and Marchionini, G. (2013). Awareness in CIS. Int. Rev. Res. Open Dist. Learn. 14 (4), 90–103. doi:10.1002/asi

Slawter, L. D. (2008). TreeHuggerTV: Re-visualizing environmental activism in the post-network Era. Environ. Commun. 2 (2), 212–228. doi:10.1080/17524030802141760

Slemmons, K., Anyanwu, K., Hames, J., Grabski, D., Mlsna, J., Simkins, E., et al. (2018). The impact of video length on learning in a middle-level flipped science setting: implications for diversity inclusion. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 27 (5), 469–479. doi:10.1007/s10956-018-9736-2

Spicer, S. (2014). Exploring video abstracts in science journals: an overview and case study. J. Libraria. Scholar. Commun. 2, eP1110. doi:10.7710/2162-3309.1110

Statista(2020a). Average YouTube video length as of December 2018, by category . Hamburg, Germany: Statista .

Statista (2020b). Distribution of total YouTube video views worldwide as of December 2018, by category . Hamburg, Germany: Statista .

Sugimoto, C. R., and Thelwall, M. (2013). Scholars on soap boxes: science communication and dissemination in TED videos. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64 (4), 663–674. doi:10.1002/asi.22764

Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Weller, K., and Puschmann, C. (2012). Assessing the impact of online academic videos. Library and Information Science 5, 195–213. doi:10.1108/S1876-0562(2012)0000005011

Trumbo, J. (1999). Visual literacy and science communication. Sci. Comm. 20 (4), 409–425.

Tsou, A., Thelwall, M., Mongeon, P., and Sugimoto, C. R. (2014). A community of curious souls: an analysis of commenting behavior on TED Talks videos. PloS One 9 (4), e93609. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093609 |

Uldam, J., and Askanius, T. (2013). Online civic cultures: debating climate change activism on YouTube. Int. J. Commun. 7, 1185–1204.

United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs .

Vachon, R. (2018). Science videos: a user’s manual for scientific communication . Berlin, Germany: Springer .

Vázquez-cano, E. (2013). The videoarticle: new reporting format in scientific journals and its integration in MOOCs. Comunicar 21 (41), 83–91. doi:10.3916/C41-2013-08

Welbourne, D. J., and Grant, W. J. (2016). Science communication on YouTube: factors that affect channel and video popularity. Publ. Understand. Sci. 25 (6), 706–718. doi:10.1177/0963662515572068

Yang, W. (2017). Audioslide presentations as an appendant genre - key words, personal pronouns, stance and engagement. ESP Today 5 (51), 24–45. doi:10.18485/esptoday.2017.5.1.2

Zong, Q., Xie, Y., Tuo, R., Huang, J., and Yang, Y. (2019). The impact of video abstract on citation counts: evidence from a retrospective cohort study of New Journal of Physics. Scientometrics 119 (3), 1715–1727. doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03108-w

Keywords: audio-visual formats, ecology, environmental communication, science and media, science communication, online video, video abstract, visual communication

Citation: Ferreira M, Lopes B, Granado A, Freitas H and Loureiro J (2021) Audio-Visual Tools in Science Communication: The Video Abstract in Ecology and Environmental Sciences. Front. Commun. 6:596248. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2021.596248

Received: 18 August 2020; Accepted: 08 January 2021; Published: 16 February 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Ferreira, Lopes, Granado, Freitas and Loureiro. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Miguel Ferreira, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

New Directions in Science and Environmental Communication: Understanding the Role of Online Video-Sharing and Online Video-Sharing Platforms for Science and Research Communication

Video Essays

On the science of learning and how to use it.

The Power of Reflection

The Curse of Expertise

Better Learning and Leadership with Psychological Safety

Learner Shorts

Growth Mindset Leadership & The Pygmalion Effect

Learning Like a Jungle Tiger

How to Build a Growth Mindset

© 2024 · The Learner Lab · Built For The Learners · Sitemap · About

How the world’s richest reds are derived from an innocuous Mexican insect

Building embryos

For 3,000 years, humans have struggled to understand the embryo. Now there is a revolution underway

John Wallingford

Why do the building blocks of life possess a mysterious symmetry?

The cell is not a factory

Scientific narratives project social hierarchies onto nature. That’s why we need better metaphors to describe cellular life

Charudatta Navare

Animals and humans

Ant geopolitics

Over the past four centuries quadrillions of ants have created a strange and turbulent global society that shadows our own

John Whitfield

Artists of our own lives

The genome is the starting point for a performance we enact over a lifetime, not a blueprint we’ve got to follow

Richard O Prum

Ageing and death

Demystifying death – a palliative care specialist’s practical guide to life’s end

Explore a bioluminescent world of cellular life via cutting-edge microscopy

In 1886, a US agency set out to record new fruit varieties. The results are wondrous

To understand how an animal sees the world, start with the shape of its pupils

Scientists brought a wild horse back from extinction. But is it truly the same animal?

Ecology and environmental sciences

The grassroots project that’s restoring an endangered Hawaiian ecosystem

The key to geckos’ unrivalled climbing skills isn’t sticky feet. It’s subatomic

Space exploration

In the search for life, might alien ocean worlds be a better bet than Earth-like planets?

A dazzling slice-by-slice exploration of wood exposes hidden patterns and hues

Octopus time

We humans are forward-facing, gravity-bound plodders. Can the liquid motion of the octopus radicalise our ideas about time?

David Borkenhagen

The idea that life on Earth originated elsewhere is not as far out as it seems

Flicker through the eclectic beauty and biological diversity of 2,400 leaves

Biotechnology

What it’s like to wear a prosthetic that ‘feels’

To understand the limits of human senses, look to the wild world of animal cognition

Symmetry rules life on Earth – but it comes with many fascinating exceptions

There’s no one way for an insect to fly, but they’re all amazing in close up and slo-mo

Fortune favours the shrewd

Attaining and maintaining power lies at the heart of almost all animal societies. And it’s as devious as human politicking

Lee Alan Dugatkin

Dazzling timelapse shows how microbes spoil our food – and sometimes enrich it

Wiley's 'fake science' scandal is just the latest chapter in a broader crisis of trust universities must address

Analysis Wiley's 'fake science' scandal is just the latest chapter in a broader crisis of trust universities must address

John Wiley & Sons Inc is a publisher of academic journals. The company, better known as Wiley, is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and each year churns out more than 1,400 scientific and other publications across the world. Last year, it turned over more than US$2 billion ($3 billion).

Wiley is a silverback in the strange, circular marketplace of scientific publishing.

The researchers who write for these journals, and the academics who edit them, do this work largely unpaid. They are subsidised by the same universities that also pay healthy sums to then buy the journals in question.

This industry, estimated to be worth $45 billion, is underpinned by giant licks of taxpayer money — including from Australia, which spends $2 billion a year on medical research alone.

Last year, a strange thing happened at Wiley.

In March, it revealed to the NYSE a $US9 million ($13.5 million) plunge in research revenue after being forced to "pause" the publication of so-called "special issue" journals by its Hindawi imprint, which it had acquired  in 2021 for US$298 million ($450 million).

Its statement noted the Hindawi program, which comprised some 250 journals, had been "suspended temporarily due to the presence in certain special issues of compromised articles".

Many of these suspect papers purported to be serious medical studies, including examinations of drug resistance in newborns with pneumonia and the value of MRI scans in the diagnosis of early liver disease . The journals involved included Disease Markers, BioMed Research International and Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience.

As the months ticked by, the number of papers being withdrawn mounted by the hundreds.

By November, Wiley had retracted as many as 8,000 papers, telling Science it had "identified hundreds of bad actors present in our portfolio".

A month later, in exquisite corporatese, the company announced : "Wiley to sunset the Hindawi brand."

A window into a thriving, lucrative black market

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Wiley has now pulled more than 11,300 papers and shuttered 19 journals. In the midst of it all, Wiley's chief executive Brian Napack was moved on.

The Hindawi scandal offers a window into a thriving black market worth tens of millions of dollars which trades in fake science, corrupted research and bogus authorship.

It also illustrates what is just another front in a much broader crisis of trust confronting universities and scientific institutions worldwide.

For decades now, teaching standards and academic integrity have been under siege at universities which, bereft of public funding, have turned to the very lucrative business of selling degrees to international students.

Grappling with pupils whose English is inadequate, tertiary institutions have become accustomed to routine cheating and plagiarism scandals. Another fraud perfected by the internet age.

Businesses openly advertise the sale of essays to desperate students, whose efforts are freighted with the expectations of far-away, often impoverished parents; their websites even have a toggle to select the grade you're willing to pay for.

Over an open chat, I asked a top-ranked essay provider on Google what I would have to pay for a masters-level, 3,000 word essay examining Homer's Iliad which would be guaranteed to score a high distinction. The answer took less than 60 seconds: $238.55. I was assured the paper would not trigger anti-plagiarism software.

This infection — the commodification of scholarship, the industrialisation of cheating — has now spread to the heart of scientific, higher research.

With careers defined by the lustre of their peer-reviewed titles, researchers the world over are under enormous pressure to publish. This is true in Australia, but it is especially true in poorer economies. An impressive number of publications in impressive-sounding journals can open the door to job opportunities and promotions. Citations have become a currency, and few institutions devote the time or resources to check the papers in question.

What is Australia doing about the problem?

Into this integrity gap has poured sharp practice. Shadowy online paper mills are selling authorship credits to those researchers willing to pay for them.

In remarks provided to investigative website Retraction Watch, the UK Research Integrity Office recently described the problem as vast: "These are organised crime rings that are committing large-scale fraud."

The mills, principally operating from China, India, Iran, Russia and other post-Soviet states, have even been planting stooges in editors' chairs at certain journals and paying bribes to others to ensure fake papers are published.

A recent Retraction Watch investigation allegedly identified more than 30 such editors, and kickbacks of as much as US$20,000. Academic publisher Elsevier has confirmed its editors are offered cash to accept manuscripts every single week. The British regulator said in January that one unnamed publisher "had to sack 300 editors for manipulative behaviour".

So, what is Australia doing about the problem?

In 2019, the federal parliament introduced new offences criminalising the advertisement of a commercial academic cheating service, with a penalty of up to two years in jail. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency polices these provisions, and also has the power to block websites promoting essay mills. In 2022, it blocked access from Australia to 40 websites which had been attracting hundreds of thousands of visits.

These measures do not, of course, address research fraud itself.

More than a decade ago, the government claimed it had this particular problem in-hand, when the Commonwealth's peak research bodies — the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council — established a new quango to oversee the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research.

This Australian Research Integrity Committee (ARIC) declares that it works towards "ensuring high levels of community confidence in the integrity of Australian research" so that "the Australian public can have faith in research outcomes".

Calls for sweeping reform

In fact, ARIC has no role whatsoever in the investigation of academic misconduct.

In news which will surprise no one, governments have seen fit to leave that job to academics themselves: universities and research institutions are responsible for inquiring into allegations of research fraud in what is amicably described as "self-regulation".

ARIC's jurisdiction is smaller than the eye of a needle. It investigates only the process by which universities have conducted their investigations. Not their findings. And certainly not whether the allegations amount to a breach of the code.

The committee explicitly tells Commonwealth employees not to give it any evidence of wrongdoing where it is contained in Commonwealth documents, and warns whistleblowers it has no power to protect them from reprisals.

Australia's former chief scientist Ian Chubb, now with the Australian Academy of Science, is among many who are unimpressed with ARIC's role, and who have called for sweeping reform.

The academy says the current arrangements create "deficiencies in several areas such as coverage, accountability and transparency". Late last year, it called for the establishment of a "national oversight mechanism" to ensure the proper rooting out and deterrence of research fraud. That way, taxpayers "can be reassured that their money is invested in individuals and organisations committed to the highest standards of research conduct".

But the academy failed to grasp the nettle, and shied from the conflict of interest at the heart of the problem, proposing that universities still be allowed to run the misconduct inquiries themselves.

The problem is only becoming more urgent

Bruce Lander, the inaugural head of South Australia's anti-corruption commission, is among those who believe much more radical surgery is needed.

Lander points out the obvious (and somewhat universal) flaws of the self-regulatory regime. Reporters of misconduct, usually lower down the pecking order, fear their careers will be railroaded by having blown the whistle.

Universities suffer "a real disincentive" to carry out proper investigations, he says, not least because "it is not necessarily in the institution's best interests for it to become known that someone within the institution has engaged in research misconduct". They also have no powers to compel the production of evidence or even the cooperation of the accused, meaning "the opportunity to obtain evidence of that misconduct … is significantly reduced".

Lander says whatever financial drain such an investigatory body entails would be outweighed by the resulting "enhancement of the reputation for integrity" in the university and research sector.

The universities present a formidable lobby in Canberra, however, and have vociferously fought other attempts at regulation, including on questions of tertiary education standards and even the safety of their students on campus.

They have adopted a Wall Street-style approach to their missions, paying exorbitant salaries to their leaders and gunning for eye-watering surpluses . They are interested principally in the protection of their global rankings, to which they tie their prospects of attracting future fee-payers.

The problem is only becoming more urgent. The recent explosion of artificial intelligence raises the stakes even further. A researcher at University College London recently found more than 1 per cent of all scientific articles published last year, some 60,000 papers, were likely written by a computer.

In some sectors, it's worse. Almost one out of every five computer science papers published in the past four years may not have been written by humans.

Education was Australia's fourth-largest export industry last year. Even if realpolitik requires the putting to one side of noble, irritating questions of integrity and trust, shouldn't more be done to protect its value?

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Unsw to face review over research misconduct processes that have taken more than two years.

WA headmaster urges education officials to embrace ChatGPT, as student ban is considered

After 30 of his papers were retracted, this Melbourne scientist finally lost his job

• Academic Research
• Education and Training Industry
• Medical Research

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Title: mosca: dynamic gaussian fusion from casual videos via 4d motion scaffolds.

Abstract: We introduce 4D Motion Scaffolds (MoSca), a neural information processing system designed to reconstruct and synthesize novel views of dynamic scenes from monocular videos captured casually in the wild. To address such a challenging and ill-posed inverse problem, we leverage prior knowledge from foundational vision models, lift the video data to a novel Motion Scaffold (MoSca) representation, which compactly and smoothly encodes the underlying motions / deformations. The scene geometry and appearance are then disentangled from the deformation field, and are encoded by globally fusing the Gaussians anchored onto the MoSca and optimized via Gaussian Splatting. Additionally, camera poses can be seamlessly initialized and refined during the dynamic rendering process, without the need for other pose estimation tools. Experiments demonstrate state-of-the-art performance on dynamic rendering benchmarks.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

How to Observe the Northern Lights This Weekend

The Space Weather Prediction Center said solar activity would be high again on Saturday.

Northern Lights Glow in the Sky Amid Solar Storm

Powerful solar flare activity made the aurora borealis visible unusually far south..

[Laughing] Holy moly. I know. This — I thought it would just be over on the horizon a little — Behind us, too. Yeah. A little green on the horizon. Nothing like this. This is — This is like, ‘Oh, my god.’ Everywhere.

By Claire Moses

Keep an eye on the skies on Saturday night for what could be another dazzling display of nature — or not, depending on your location and weather conditions.

An unusual amount of solar flare activity means that the aurora borealis, or the northern lights, could continue to appear over the weekend.

The solar storm was a level 5 on Friday, which gave some star gazers a clear view of streaks of green, purple and red that arced across the skies. Those conditions are expected to continue, Mike Bettwy, the operations chief of the Space Weather Prediction Center, said on Saturday.

“It should be fairly similar to what we saw last night, maybe not as widespread but fairly close,” Mr. Bettwy said.

“Depending on how everything evolves,” he added, “tomorrow night might actually be better than tonight” for views of the aurora.

In areas with clear skies, the display on Sunday could be similar to what people witnessed on Friday.

If you’re in a place with a lot of bright lights — like a city — it’s going to be hard to see anything. And then there are other complications, like the weather.

Two weather systems on Saturday night could impair viewing of the solar display, said Bryan Jackson, a forecaster at the Weather Prediction Center.

The Northeast is likely to be overcast because of a cloud system that could stretch from the Midwest and center over Pennsylvania. Cloud coverage might also extend as far as Maine, with the potential to clear around New Hampshire.

“This event is strong enough that the Northeast United States pretty much universally has a good shot at seeing it,” Mr. Bettwy said. “It’s just a matter of making sure that the cloud cover is absent.”

A second storm system, which was predicted to produce a fair amount of rain and cloud coverage, is possible over the Southwest.

Mr. Jackson said Michigan was likely to have clear skies between waves of rain. Other regions of the country could have clear views, too.

“In Seattle, it was pretty clear last night and it looks to be pretty clear again,” Mr. Jackson said on Saturday. “Portions of the southern Rockies, portions of the southern Plains are not overcast, but not completely clear either.”

The lights were particularly brilliant over England on Friday, and images of the solar show awed onlookers in parts of Maine and Massachusetts.

A tip: If you are in a clear area, even south of where the aurora is forecast, snap a picture or record a video with your cellphone.

The sensor on the camera is more sensitive to the wavelengths produced by the aurora and may produce an image you can’t see with the naked eye.

Why is this happening?

A severe solar storm is brewing.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Space Weather Prediction Center on Friday issued a rare warning after a solar outburst reached Earth.

As nuclear reactions occur on the sun, it routinely expels material from its surface.

Officials said that the solar activity could potentially cause electrical outages or interfere with navigation and communication systems.

When is this happening?

The expelled material from the sun could reach Earth’s atmosphere by Friday afternoon or evening, officials said.

“What we’re expecting over the next couple of days should be more significant than what we’ve seen, certainly so far,” Mike Bettwy, the operations chief at NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center, said at a news conference on Friday.

What’s flaring up?

The Space Weather Prediction Center said on Friday night that we were experiencing an extreme solar storm, a level 5 , up from a level 4 earlier in the day .

The last extreme event happened in October 2003 and resulted in power failures in Sweden and damaged transformers in South Africa, the center said.

The current storm is caused by a cluster of sunspots — dark, cool regions on the solar surface. The cluster is flaring and ejecting material every six to 12 hours.

“We anticipate that we’re going to get one shock after another through the weekend,” said Brent Gordon, chief of the space weather services branch at NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center.

Katrina Miller , Emmett Lindner and Judson Jones contributed reporting.

Claire Moses is a Times reporter in London, focused on coverage of breaking and trending news. More about Claire Moses

What’s Up in Space and Astronomy

Keep track of things going on in our solar system and all around the universe..

Never miss an eclipse, a meteor shower, a rocket launch or any other 2024 event  that’s out of this world with  our space and astronomy calendar .

A dramatic blast from the sun  set off the highest-level geomagnetic storm in Earth’s atmosphere, making the northern lights visible around the world .

With the help of Google Cloud, scientists who hunt killer asteroids churned through hundreds of thousands of images of the night sky to reveal 27,500 overlooked space rocks in the solar system .

A celestial image, an Impressionistic swirl of color in the center of the Milky Way, represents a first step toward understanding the role of magnetic fields  in the cycle of stellar death and rebirth.

Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of dark energy, a mysterious cosmic force . That could be good news for the fate of the universe.

Is Pluto a planet? And what is a planet, anyway? Test your knowledge here .

Daily Southtown | Tinley Park honors veterans, recognizes youth…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

• Daily Southtown Sports
• Daily Southtown Opinion
• All Suburbs

Daily Southtown

Daily southtown | tinley park honors veterans, recognizes youth essay winners at memorial day ceremony.

But it did Richton Park Retired Chief Petty Officer Robert J. Welch’s heart good to see the Principe family of Mercy, 9, Levi, 7, Lukas, 5, Joy, 4, and Hudson, 1, sitting in the front row Monday. Welch spoke at the 2024 Memorial Day Ceremony at General Patrick E. Rea Veterans Plaza in Tinley Park with the children listening to what he had to say.

Welch, a heavily decorated veteran who serves with many veterans groups and is a engineering equipment manager with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, said younger people need to be involved and understand the meaning of Memorial Day.

“Memorial Day is not just another holiday,” Welch said. “We need to pass along our knowledge to the next generation so that they may do the same. We must ensure that the youth of tomorrow understands the true cost of freedom.”

Aside from the Principe family of Tinley Park, there was a smattering of youth among the several hundred in attendance.

But there were also a pair of young essay winners who shared their wisdom.

Emma Dix of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin School in Orland Hills, read from her Patriots Pen essay, that centered on the pride she feels living in the United States thanks to those who fought and died for the country.

“Our great country, America, inspires me because of its freedom, rich history, natural beauty and people who make up this wonderful nation that I call my home” she said.

“As I get older, I obtain great responsibilities that are my duties as a citizen to fulfill.”

Dix said she is looking forward to the day when she can vote and have a say in the world that is around her.

“In some countries, people don’t have these liberties,” Dix said.

Tinley Park High School junior Benjamin James also hit hard on the right to vote in his Voice of Democracy essay.

James is involved with tennis, golf, mathletes, scholastic bowl, chess, the National Honor Society, the marching band, the symphonic band and jazz band.

He also runs a lawn care business and is a lifeguard.

“The right to vote for elected officials is the foundation of American democracy and is considered one of the most essential attributes of the United States political system,” he said.

“Since the establishment of the United States of America, the right to vote of elected officials has been very prevalent.”

Sofia Barrios, of St. George School, also was a Patriots Pen essay winner but couldn’t attend the ceremony.

The ceremony also featured comments from Veteran Commission Chairman William Douglas Rasmussen III and Tinley Park Mayor Michael Glotz.

There was a battlefield cross ceremony, a flag ceremony, the playing of taps, the presentation of a wreath in memory of all fallen veterans and music provided by the Tinley Park Community Bank. Mandy Barry sang the “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

The 2024 veteran banner honorees were named. They will have their photos on light posts in the community.

They are Daniel Bachara, Louis Bachara, James Black, Michael Bubacz, Kevin Clarke, John Domina, Thomas Dukes, Eddie Durham, Savio Gonsalves, Timothy Keating and Kryi Kirk.

Also honored were Peter Laurinaltis, Robert Allen McAllister, Richard Miller, Gerald Nichols, Edward James Novak, Gerald Petrow, W. Douglas Rasmussen III, Anthony Sorrentino, Edward Stolinski, John Turas and John Wegrzyn.

Welch emphasized that those who lost their lives should never be forgotten.

“Generation after generation has been fortunate enough to reap the benefits paid for by those who believe that freedom is worth fighting for and, if necessary, dying for,” he said.

“In cemeteries across American and around the world today, people will pause to spread flowers on the graves of those lost in war. But today should not be about sorrow.”

He said what it should be about is a phrase Gen. George Patton used in 1944, when he said that “We should thank God that such men lived.”

“That is what this very special day is all about, being thankful that such brave men and women have lived,” Welch said.

Jeff Vorva is a freelance reporter for the Daily Southtown

More in Daily Southtown

Daily Southtown | Landmarks: Stories from Flossmoor’s past help revive veterans memorial

Daily Southtown | Cook County program to fund infrastructure, projects throughout south suburbs

Daily Southtown | Homewood-Flossmoor senior Jack Piros wins National Political Science Bee in Virginia

Daily Southtown Opinion | Column: It’s not too late for teens to find summer jobs

Trending nationally.

• Baltimore D-Day veteran, 104, returns to Normandy, perhaps for the last time
• One nation, under watch: New brand of largely unregulated mass surveillance is expanding in Virginia
• Florida priest bites woman who grabbed Holy Communion wafers
• California city pays nearly $900,000 for ‘psychological torture’ inflicted by police to get false confession
• McDonald’s getting rid of soda machines, free refills