Social media are acknowledged more and more as tools to communicate science and influence policies. Meetings now have an active presence in social media, with specific hashtags developed to make each event identifiable and searchable. Twitter, for instance, has proved itself highly effective in disseminating the main ideas and results presented at a conference to both attendees and those who could not attend because of time constraints, economic reasons, or even physical or societal barriers. Such rapid communication has the potential to make science more inclusive, fostering collaboration and results. However, there is a new and controversial trend to limit the free use of social media in scientific conferences. At the 100th Anniversary Meeting of the Ecological Society of America celebrated in Baltimore in August (http://esa.org/baltimore/), with about 3800 attendees, the open use of Twitter ([ 1 ][1]) and photography ([ 2 ][2]) during talks was restricted unless permission from the organization or speakers had been granted for each specific talk. A few speakers during that meeting even used a “free to tweet” icon on their slides. Similar guidelines exist for numerous meetings organized by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory ([ 3 ][3]). A restrictive policy regarding the use of social media in conferences clearly limits the impact of the communicated science and makes little sense in events with attendees in the thousands. We believe that results communicated in a public event should be viewed as public as if they were published in a journal. This would mean, unfortunately, that authors with confidential results or articles under embargo should keep them provisionally outside public view. With the generalized use of smartphones, tablets, and other communication devices in everyday life, the scientific community should think strategically and clarify the role that social media should play in our activities. 1. [↵][4]Ecological Society, 8 August 2015 tweet ([https://twitter.com/esa_org/status/630198110371860482][5]). 2. [↵][6]Ecological Society of America, Code of Conduct ([www.esa.org/esa/meetings/esa-meetings-code-of-conduct/][7]). 3. [↵][8]Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Confidentiality and Reporting Policy for CSHL Meetings ([https://meetings.cshl.edu/information.aspx?meet=PCD&year=15#media][9]). [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: http://twitter.com/esa_org/status/630198110371860482 [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [7]: http://www.esa.org/esa/meetings/esa-meetings-code-of-conduct/ [8]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [9]: http://meetings.cshl.edu/information.aspx?meet=PCD&year=15#media
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Orizaola et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: