Investigative Study on Preprint Journal Club as an Effective Method of Teaching Latest Knowledge in Astronomy

TL;DR

This study investigates the factors influencing the success of preprint journal clubs in astronomy, highlighting key elements like commitment, environment, content, and objectives, and evaluates their impact through surveys and an academic course.

Contribution

It identifies critical factors affecting preprint journal club effectiveness and provides an evaluation framework based on a case study of an astronomy journal club implemented as a class.

Findings

Enrolled participants show higher commitment than non-enrolled.

Participants find papers outside their research field harder to read.

Regular presenters read more papers and report high satisfaction.

Abstract

As recent advancements in physics and astronomy rapidly rewrite textbooks, there is a growing need in keeping abreast of the latest knowledge in these fields. Reading preprints is one of the effective ways to do this. By having journal clubs where people can read and discuss journals together, the benefits of reading journals become more prevalent. We present an investigative study of understanding the factors that affect the success of preprint journal clubs in astronomy, more commonly known as Astro-ph/Astro-Coffee (hereafter called AC). A survey was disseminated to understand how institutions from different countries implement AC. We interviewed 9 survey respondents and from their responses we identified four important factors that make AC successful: commitment (how the organizer and attendees participate in AC), environment (how conducive and comfortable AC is conducted), content (the discussed topics in AC and how they are presented), and objective (the main goal/s of conducting AC). We also present the format of our AC, an elective class which was evaluated during the Spring Semester 2020 (March 2020 - June 2020). Our evaluation with the attendees showed that enrollees (those who are enrolled and are required to present papers regularly) tend to be more committed in attending compared to audiences (those who are not enrolled and are not required to present papers regularly). In addition, participants tend to find papers outside their research field harder to read. Finally, we showed an improvement in the weekly number of papers read after attending AC of those who present papers regularly, and a high satisfaction rating of our AC. We summarize the areas of improvement in our AC implementation, and we encourage other institutions to evaluate their own AC in accordance with the four aforementioned factors to assess the effectiveness of their AC in reaching their goals.