Filter by keyword: Scholarly communication

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.

This state-of-the-art literature review advances the shift in science communication research towards an organisational perspective, moving focus from individual researchers' capabilities to the role of organisational structures and practices. It explores how temporary collaborative research organisations, such as research projects, organise their activities, and examines the link between organisational structuring and science communication. Offering a structured overview, the review identifies research gaps and contributes to systematising the field by proposing a conceptual framework that integrates the communicative constitution of organisations (CCO) theory with institutional approaches to science communication. The literature reveals three key organisational dimensions: contextual conditions, cooperation, and communication. In addition to previously recognised components of `organisationality' — actorhood, identity, and interconnected decision-making — contextual conditions are also shown to play a role in organising in temporary research organisations. The theoretically driven framework supports the defragmentation of the research field and provides a foundation for future inquiry.

TikTok has become an increasingly important platform for communication, yet it remains understudied in science communication research. This commentary addresses this gap by discussing findings from an exploratory interview study with social scientists who actively communicate about science on TikTok. Drawing on in-depth, semi-structured interviews and one author's platform experience, we examine the types of hostility researchers encounter and how they cope with criticism and harassment in their digital public engagement. A central and counter-intuitive finding is that participants often normalise, and sometimes value negative responses as these inspire content, provoke discussion, and boost engagement. Thus, hostility is reframed as a form of communicative capital. This dynamic exemplifies the “Engagement Paradox,” defined here as the tension in which negative feedback simultaneously acts as validation and as a strategic resource to enhance visibility. We conclude by discussing how the infrastructural arrangements of platforms and their political-economic foundations shape science communication and highlight the norms they (re)create amid the post-normal conditions of science communication.

The commentary diagnoses a structural contradiction: policy, institutions, and funders often encourage outward-facing activity while outsourcing its risks to individual scholars or external institutions. Integrating interviews with climate change researchers (N=13) as a case study alongside selected scholarship (without claiming completeness), we document how institutional reputation can overshadow researcher-centered support, how training often underaddresses emotional and security burdens, and how assistance can wane when harassment escalates. While various studies — including our own — still point to inadequate support structures, there is a wide range of services on offer that could prove effective in the long term. We elaborate on some of these in more detail, with a particular focus on Germany as the authors' (academic) home country.

This article presents a practice insight into the role of archival exhibitions as instruments of science communication, focusing on the KHARINA Exhibition (Khazanah Arsip Riset dan Inovasi Nasional) organised by Indonesia's National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN). KHARINA consolidates archival collections from legacy institutions to narrate milestones in the nation's research and innovation history. A thematic content analysis of seven curated collections revealed three dominant patterns: (1) a strong emphasis on technological and administrative documentation, (2) evidence of both international and domestic collaboration, and (3) limited representation of social and human-interest narratives. These findings illustrate KHARINA's dual contribution: safeguarding national achievements in science and technology while also exposing inclusivity gaps that limit accessibility for non-specialist audiences. The article highlights lessons for science communication practice, particularly the importance of integrating community perspectives and participatory documentation to complement technical and policy records. The KHARINA case demonstrates how archival exhibitions in developing-country contexts can contribute to science communication, cultural diplomacy, and the construction of collective memory, while pointing to pathways for more inclusive and engaging curatorial strategies.

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.

Early career researchers (ECRs) are increasingly socialised in professional environments where science communication is seen as part of their academic role. ECRs respond to these expectations differently, shaped in part by social relationships within and beyond academia. This study uses ego-network interviews with 24 highly communicative STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) ECRs in Germany to examine how social relationships influence the importance as well as the integration of science communication in their professional identity. Results show that recognition and support often come from private contacts and the science communication community, while workplace environments are perceived as less supportive and formative. Moreover, different formats and processes of science communication seem to be tied to distinct networks and underlying communication motives.

Starting from the premise that public science communication practices have changed in recent years, this paper asks where these changes are heading and what factors can explain them. We conducted a survey among researchers at CONICET[CONICET (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas) is the National Council of Science and Technology.] in Argentina, asking them about these changing practices. Considering the major technological changes that have taken place in recent years, we find that science popularisation activities have intensified, but with significant differences in the means used to communicate informed by the career stage of the researcher. We also consider the different motivations of scientists to engage in science communication activities.

Philip Cohen argues for social scientists to be active citizens, intervening in public debates with the legitimacy that their expertise gives them. His advocacy and advice for “citizen scholarship” are guided by his own experience.