I’m leery about the whole idea of “science communication”. While science communicators generally present themselves as educators, a lot of science communication is at least as much concerned with fostering favourable public attitudes to the quite particular private interests of professional scientists who want more funding for certain types of research, of political organisations who…
Obviously, the process by which papers are accepted or rejected by peer reviewers is all to do with scientific quality and the scientific community is built around a common understanding of what that means. Or is it?
Blurring the boundaries between “scientific” knowledge or discussion and knowledge or discussion generally is not an fruitful way forward for open science.
Lunar Missions Ltd say they can land a probe on the moon with crowd funding. If an entire space mission really can be financed without government or corporate backing, it raises the question of why any other area of scientific research would consider such support necessary.
Tensions over the idea of open science will only resolve themselves when an ‘open’ model of science abandons the idea of authoritative research statements as represented by the ‘scientific paper’ altogether.