English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This study examines the nature of peer-to-peer interactions in public online comment spaces. From a theoretical perspective of boundary-work and expertise, the comments posted in response to three health sciences news articles from a national newspaper are explored to determine whether both scientific and personal expertise are recognized and taken up in discussion. Posts were analysed for both explicit claims to expertise and implicit claims embedded in discourse. The analysis suggests that while both scientific and personal expertise are proffered by commenters, it is scientific expertise that is privileged. Those expressing scientific expertise receive greater recognition of the value of their posts. Contributors seeking to share personal expertise are found to engage in scientisation to position themselves as worthwhile experts. Findings suggest that despite the possibilities afforded by online comments for a broader vision of what peer-to-peer interaction means, this possibility is not realized. Increasing calls for public engagement in science and the ever growing accessibility of information has lead to important questions about whom is to be considered expert and whose contributions are to be taken seriously when public policy, discussion and decision making involves science and scientists. Traditional boundaries marked those with scientific credentials as experts and those without as non- experts. In pre-Web 2.0 science, this boundary also defined who had contributory access to creating scientific knowledge as well as those who had interactional access - the ability to read, comment on and discuss scientific findings. Interactive public discussion of scientific research existed primarily in letters to the editor and peer-reviewed commentaries published in scientific journals. Access to these journals usually requires a personal subscription or access to an institutional subscription generally only afforded by a position within a research or academic institution. Outside of academic journals, public reports of science often followed a public understanding model characterized by one-way communication with, for example, science journalists acting as intermediaries, communicating expert scientific findings to non- experts outside of science. Collins and Evans 1 assert, however, that a new view of expertise is needed to a) account for the contributions that individuals without scientific credentials can make to scientific knowledge and b) to better describe the lack of expertise that scientists hold outside their focus area. Instead of a horizontal line between those with scientific credentials and those without, they propose a vertical boundary marking those with contributory expertise from those without. This includes scientists working in their area of expertise and individuals outside of traditional science who have developed practical expertise that allows them to contribute to building new knowledge, for example, farmers, AIDS activists, and cancer patients whose personal experience offers ways of understanding that cannot be accounted for in laboratory science. The public read-write capabilities of current internet communications have the potential to support the participation and recognition of these non-scientific experts. They allow individuals, regardless of scientific credentials, to engage in two-way communication to a greater degree and in a more immediate way. In many cases, such as the comment spaces provided by both blogs and traditional news sites, this participation is also anonymous. There are no formal qualifications needed to contribute and the only

Changing the meaning of peer-to-peer? Exploring online comment spaces as sites of negotiated expertise