Filter by author: Michelle Riedlinger

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly present in academic writing workflows, and their irresponsible use poses a growing threat to the integrity of scholarly publishing. In this editorial, we highlight the emergence of AI-generated references, or so-called “ghost references”, as a specific concern for JCOM and the wider academic community. We consider how AI tools like large language models can produce convincing yet fictitious citations that might bypass standard peer review. Also, we reaffirm JCOM's policy requiring full disclosure of any generative AI use in preparing manuscripts, remind authors that the responsibility for accuracy and integrity lies with those whose names appear on submissions, and outline our commitment to reject, withdraw, or retract manuscripts found to contain fabricated content at any stage of the publication process. As a journal dedicated to science communication, JCOM maintains a strong focus on the honest and transparent development of knowledge.

This study explores the role of ChatGPT in science-related information retrieval, building on research conducted in 2023. Drawing on online survey data from seven countries—Australia, Denmark, Germany, Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United States—and two data collection points (2023 and 2024), the study highlights ChatGPT’s growing role as an information intermediary, reflecting the rapid diffusion of generative AI (GenAI) in general. While GenAI adoption is a global phenomenon, distinct regional variations emerge in the use of ChatGPT for science-related searches. Additionally, the study finds that a specific subset of the population is more likely to use ChatGPT for science-related information retrieval. Across all countries surveyed, science-information seekers report higher levels of trust in GenAI compared to non-users. They also exhibit a stronger understanding of how (Gen)AI works and, with some notable exceptions, show greater awareness of its epistemic limitations.

As we usher in 2024, we highlight some of the issues and trends that are occupying JCOM, and the fields of science communication and academic publishing more generally.

This is a response to Sesan and Ibiyemi's essay [2023], which rightly urges “scholars and science communicators” to resist the colonial legacy of science in African countries. The essay argues that northern paradigms, focused on science as the only true form of knowledge, need to be replaced with functional Indigenous knowledge systems. However, the authors adopt the framework of the global north when reimagining and advocating for a radical ‘power literate’ agenda thus confounding knowledge with science, and education with science communication. These approaches obscure the fundamental importance of reimagining power dynamics in a world of multiple epistemologies. Instead, we propose that ‘knowledge communicators’ facilitate a multi-knowledge world through participatory processes.

During June 2023, we met with the JCOM editorial board members to reflect on the current status of the journal and strategies for future growth. This editorial provides a snapshot of our position and plans.

The Covid-19 pandemic escalated demand for scientific explanations and guidance, creating opportunities for scientists to become publicly visible. In this study, we compared characteristics of visible scientists during the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic (January to December 2020) across 16 countries. We find that the scientists who became visible largely matched socio-cultural criteria that have characterised visible scientists in the past (e.g., age, gender, credibility, public image, involvement in controversies). However, there were limited tendencies that scientists commented outside their areas of expertise. We conclude that the unusual circumstances created by Covid-19 did not change the phenomenon of visible scientists in significant ways.

Our 20th anniversary this year is a special milestone for JCOM. It is a time to reflect on our past performance and future prospects. We pause to consider the activities of this journal, and the broad field of science communication over the past 20 years.

In this editorial, we reflect on our new roles as Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editor of JCOM. We acknowledge the work of previous editors of JCOM, the Editorial Office and the wider JCOM community who have contributed to the success of the journal. We introduce the new Editorial Board and future directions for the journal, and we encourage suggestions from authors, reviewers and readers for taking the journal forward.

Twelve researchers from 11 countries used autoethnographic techniques, keeping diaries over 10 weeks of the COVID-19 crisis, to observe and reflect on changes in the role and cultural authority of science during important stages of viral activity and government action in their respective countries. We followed arguments, discussions and ideas generated by mass and social media about science and scientific expertise, observed patterns and shifts in narratives, and made international comparisons. During regular meetings via video conference, the participating researchers discussed theoretical approaches and our joint methodology for reflecting on our observations. This project is informed by social representations theory, agenda-setting, and frames of meaning associated with the rise and fall of expertise and trust. This paper presents our observations and reflections on the role and authority of science in our countries from March 10 to May 31, 2020. This is the first stage of a longer-term project that aims to identify, analyse and compare changes in science-society relationships over the course of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

For many decades, NGOs and social movements have acted as “alternative” science communicators. They have made strategic use of science to promote their ideological stances, to influence political and/or economic decision-making and to motivate civic action. To date, however, our understanding of science communication in activism has received little critical attention. This set of commentaries acts as a starting point for further research and reflection. The different cases and perspectives urge readers to consider the impact, democratic legitimacy, and relevance of alternative science communication, and the challenges that alternative science communicators pose for science communication and society.