Daryl Joe D. Santos
The evaluation of the role of preprint journal clubs in Astronomy as a tool for teaching the newest discoveries in Astronomy has not been explored yet. In this paper, 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) which will be later used as a basis for evaluating our AC in the university. A survey was disseminated to get comments from universities and institutions from different countries. Eighteen responses were gathered, and eight of them were able to have a follow-up interview with us. We identified four important factors that make AC successful based on their responses: commitment (how the organiser 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 current format of our AC, an elective class that was implemented during the Spring Semester 2020. Our evaluation with the attendees shows that enrolees of the class tend to be more committed but more pressured in presenting papers than those who volunteer to present and audiences who just visit to listen to discussions. Besides, most attendees tend to discuss papers related to their research fields but find research fields not similar to theirs as difficult to understand. Overall, all attendees agree that the main objectives of our AC were met, which is to keep updated with the latest Astronomy-related breakthroughs and to read papers more effectively. We encourage other institutions to evaluate their own AC following the four factors that we mentioned to assess the effectiveness of their AC in reaching their goals.
First, we disseminated an online survey to AC organizers from universities and institutions around the world to know more about certain aspects of their AC, such as design, format, environment, and advantages and disadvantages of their current format. Respondents are also asked if they are willing to undergo a follow-up email/video interview. We received 18 survey responses from 16 universities and institutes around the world. 2 of the respondents did not have AC in their institutions due to lack of common time for AC and lack of committed people to organize it.
We identified 4 factors that are crucial for successfully setting up and maintaining AC which serves as a brief summary of the responses that we received.
Commitment. This refers to how committed the organiser/s and participants are in attending and participating in AC
Environment. This focuses on the conduciveness of the AC setting for learning
Content. This refers to the materials used and topics discussed during AC
Objective. This is the most important factor as it affects the first three factors. It refers to the goal of AC, which may differ from AC to AC.
We also present the format of AC in our university (National Tsing Hua University in Hsinchu City, Taiwan) during the Spring Semester 2020. It was held every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, from 12:20 pm to 1:00 pm. Participants can post on our Facebook group or vote on VoxCharta, a preprint journal server where people can vote on the papers which they want to discuss. Each presenter has 10 minutes to present the aim and results of the paper, and a minimum of three papers are discussed per day. A 5-point Likert scale questionnaire was utilized to evaluate certain points related to the 4 aforementioned important factors. For the sake of the analysis, participants were classified as enrolees (those who are enrolled and are required to present regularly), volunteers (those who are not enrolled but volunteered to present regularly), and audiences (those who did not enrol and did not present).
Evaluation of our AC showed that certain factors are perceived differently by different classification of participants. For instance, enrolees tend to attend and participate in sessions more regularly than volunteers and audiences, but they feel more pressured in presenting and reading papers than volunteers and audiences. All participants increased the average number of papers read per week after attending AC, but they tend to avoid discussing papers outside their field and instead stick to their own fields. Overall, all participants gave a high average satisfactory rating as they feel that the objectives were met. We hope that this research will serve as a benchmark for those who want to start and improve or assess their own AC in their respective institutes.