Filter by author: Janise Brück

Search results

• Date of publication Jul 13, 2026 Category: Article

  Shared gatekeeping: comparing relevance criteria for selecting science information

  by Janise Brück

  Science communication experiences major transitions: alongside science journalists, scientists, their institutions, and public relations departments increasingly select and communicate science information to publics, thereby stepping into gatekeeping roles. To better understand this “shared gatekeeping” and how different science communicators select topics, this article investigates relevance criteria that guide selection and communication decisions of science information. Drawing on 57 interviews with German-speaking science journalists, science public relations practitioners, and scientists, the study identifies and compares relevance criteria for each group based on the hierarchy of influences model. Findings reveal a wide range of relevance criteria as well as similarities and differences at individual, communication routines, organizational, and social institutional levels. Although all groups seem to be guided by similar, partly journalistic, relevance criteria (e.g., overlapping goals, topic characteristics), they operate within distinct professional contexts and thus weigh these criteria differently.

  Volume 25 • Issue 5 • 2026 • Transitions in Science Communication: Continuity and Change (PCST 2025)

• Date of publication Aug 20, 2025 Category: Conference Review

  Science communication and its role in communication research: reflections from the 4th Science Communication Preconference at ICA25

  by Janise Brück

  Held one day before the 75th ICA conference, the fourth Science Communication Preconference brought together about 60 international researchers to explore the role and contribution of science communication to the broader field of communication research. The conference’s emphasis on inclusion, global perspectives, and theoretical development, as underscored by two keynotes and 23 presentations, was highlighted by the official recognition of science communication as an ICA interest group – an encouraging milestone for the field at a time when science is increasingly under pressure.

  Volume 24 • Issue 04 • 2025

• Date of publication Mar 24, 2025 Category: Article

  Identifying trust cues: how trust in science is mediated in content about science

  by Justin T. Schröder , Janise Brück , Lars Guenther

  Most public audiences in Germany receive scientific information via a variety of (digital) media; in these contexts, media act as intermediaries of trust in science by providing information that present reasons for public audiences to place their trust in science. To describe this process, the study introduces the term “trust cues”. To identify such content-related trust cues, an explorative qualitative content analysis has been applied to German journalistic, populist, social, and other (non-journalistic) online media (“n” = 158). In total, “n” = 1,329 trust cues were coded. The findings emphasize the diversity of mediated trust, with trust cues being connected to dimensions of trust in science (established: expertise, integrity, benevolence; recently introduced: transparency, dialogue). Through this analysis, the study aims for a better understanding of mediated trust in science. Deriving this finding is crucial since public trust in science is important for individual and collective informed decision-making and crises management.

  Volume 24 • Issue 01 • 2025

• Date of publication Dec 16, 2024 Category: Article

  Intermediaries in the limelight: how exposure to trust cues in content about science affects public trust in science

  by Lars Guenther , Justin T. Schröder , Anne Reif , Janise Brück , Monika Taddicken , Peter Weingart , Evelyn Jonas

  A potential decline in public trust in science has often been linked to digital media environments, which serve as intermediaries of trust by providing cues for why (not) to trust science. This study examines whether exposure to trust cues in content affects public trust in science (across population groups). The study employs a mixed-method design, combining content analysis (“n” = 906) and panel survey data (“n” = 1,030) in Germany. The findings reveal that exposure to trust cues in certain media predicts public trust in science. Variations across trust groups indicate a nuanced nature of trust-assessing processes in digital media environments.

  Volume 23 • Issue 09 • 2024 • Special Issue: Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments (Trust in science)