PREreview of Improved science communication and student gains from an undergraduate biomedical research experience

Summary and Strengths 

Science communication is an essential skill in STEM fields and is often a requirement of Summer Undergraduate Research Experiences (SUREs) in which students present their research projects in written or oral formats. Despite this, opportunities to develop or strengthen students’ science communication skills are not often provided during the SURE. This study aimed to address the impact of science communication trainings – when integrated into SUREs – on students’ (1) ability to communicate their research in writing, (2) perceived confidence and satisfaction with their research experience, and (3) interest in pursuing an advanced STEM degree. To address these aims, the authors (1) compared scores of students’ research abstracts for those who engaged in science communication programming versus those who did not, and (2 + 3) surveyed students before and after their research experience about their general gains from involvement in the SURE. The authors concluded that science communication programming and involvement in a SURE led to positive gains in research skills and confidence in their scientific abilities. 

The authors introduce a compelling argument for the need for science communication training. The reviewers believe results from this study may provide evidence for further structuring of SUREs. Additionally, we find that the limitations of the study are well addressed, and the data visuals to be clean and clear. We have identified several questions and concerns that will need to be addressed prior to its final publication – particularly related to experimental design and interpretation of results. Our concerns and suggestions are presented below.    

Major Issues 

Overall 

• The three stated hypotheses address the impact of the science communication series (SCS), but the method used to address hypotheses 2 and 3 (i.e., survey) does not piece apart the effect of the SURE versus the effect of the SCS (or both). You therefore do not present sufficient evidence to claim that the SCS led to positive perceived gains in research skills and confidence. To address this, you could: 

• Only display evidence supporting hypothesis 1 

• Rewrite the hypotheses to detail the benefits of SUREs and not the SCS itself 

• Refine your methods to adequately address these hypotheses 

Title 

• The reviewers find “student gains” to be vague. Additionally, we recommend rewording the title to accurately reflect the findings of the paper, such as “Integrating science communication programming into undergraduate research experiences improves students’ written communication of their research”. 

Methods 

• The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors expanded on the SURE and SCS: 

• What did the students do in the SURE and what was the structure? 

• Were students paired with mentors or other students in the SURE? 

• Were the facilitators trained in science communication? 

• What was the structure of the SCS – did it involve group discussions or active learning? 

• Are abstract scores good indicators of improved science communication? We recommend elaborating on the potential limitations of this in the discussion. 

Results 

•  The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors expanded on their undergraduate student population: 

• How were the students recruited to the SURE? 

• Had they participated in research or science communication programming before the SURE? 

• Did they receive any other mentorship/guidance during the SURE? 

• The abstract training is directly related to hypothesis 1 – how many students participated in this training? 

• How many students used the seminar materials compared to attending the trainings? 

• If the abstract judging from 2019 and 2021 were different judges, are there significant differences between the 2019 abstracts and the 2021 non-SCS abstracts? If so, is it fair to combine them and compare their scores to the 2021 SCS abstracts? 

Minor Issues 

Abstract 

• The reviewers are unsure of what the last sentence of the abstract (“Focused learning...”) means. We recommend clarifying. 

Introduction 

• The reviewers recommend clarifying “exposure” in the last sentence of the second paragraph (“Increasing undergraduate...). Do you mean exposure to science communication training? 

• The supporting literature provides evidence for lack of science communication training in SUREs but does not elaborate on general impact of undergraduate science communication trainings outside of a SURE (i.e., are these known to be effective?) or the communication skills that are typically developed while participating in a SURE (e.g. professional networking). 

• The reviewers recommend that the author should use articles/materials related to science communication in the medical field instead of focusing on general science communication (for instance: Illingworth, S., & Prokop, A. (2017, October). Science communication in the field of fundamental biomedical research. In Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology (Vol. 70, pp. 1-9). Academic Press.) 

Methods 

• How did students indicate their consent to participate in the study? 

• How is the SALG survey used outside of this study? 

• The reviewers recommend including a table of the SALG questions in the supplementary material. 

• The second paragraph within “Survey” states that students completed the survey prior to any learning sessions. Does this mean before each of the 6 science communication trainings? 

• Were the judges from the 2019 abstract judging different from the judges in the 2021 session? 

• Were students aware of the assessment of their materials. Is it possible there was no motivation for performance if they did not know it was being assessed 

Results 

• The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors separated Table 2 into results for students who participated in the SCS versus those who did not. 

Discussion 

• What data do you have for students’ intended career/career goal? This would be helpful to indicate in the results with the demographics. 

• We recommend removing “formal” from the second sentence of the third paragraph since some students just accessed materials rather than attending a training.  

• The final sentence of the last paragraph recommends “incorporating data”. We recommend clarifying what you mean – what data and how can it be incorporated? 

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.