ArticlePloS one2025
University scientists' willingness to participate in public engagement: A concept explication.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public engagement is increasingly recognized as a critical responsibility of the scientific community. Scientists in academic settings are well positioned to lead these efforts, but they are not always willing or able to participate in engagement. Public engagement can encompass a range of activities that may require different resources and skills, and which may have different outcomes for both scientists and non-scientists. Therefore, understanding which activities scientists are willing to participate in is critical for supporting their engagement efforts at the institutional level. Using survey data from a case study of science faculty at a large land-grant university in the United States, we conduct a systematic concept explication to better understand the dimensions of public engagement activities that scientists are willing to participate in. Based on thirteen different activities, we define and analyze the reliability of five dimensions of engagement: public scholarship, educational activities, direct engagement with public audiences, stakeholder-focused collaboration, and industry engagement. We also examine the validity of these five dimensions and how factors including institutional culture and norms, professional status, and attitudes towards engagement relate to scientists' willingness to participate in engagement. Our results provide a robust categorization of willingness to engage as a blueprint for future research in this space.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.