Scientific press releases are reaching the public directly through press reproduction and institutional dissemination. Science News Agencies (SNAs) mediate this process, distributing texts to thousands of journalists while also "leaking" them on their websites and social media. This comparative case study examines four SNAs — BORI, SMC UK, AlphaGalileo, and EurekAlert! — regarding their role in circulating public scientific information. Through literature review, SNA analysis and principles such as openness and inclusion in science, we converted scholars' concerns into a preliminary index potentially capable of assessing SNAs' public suitability. SARP (Social Adequacy Rating for Press Releases) suggests a shift from purely public relations content towards serving the public interest, highlighting areas needing attention in SNAs' social function, to be refined in future research. Clear guidelines, links to open scientific articles, and explicit notices on press releases’ purposes are simple yet effective ways to address issues concerning science public relations' pervasiveness in the public sphere.

This study investigates how Germany’s anti-lockdown and anti-vaccine protest movement, led mainly by the Querdenken network, allied with conspiracist and far-right groups, utilized scientific authority while opposing COVID-19 policy. We analyse posts published in 161 public Telegram channels using a computational pipeline that combines named-entity recognition, structural topic modeling, a BERT sentiment classifier, and an open-source large language model, Mixtral. We report that mentions of scientific information surged during periods of heightened policy uncertainty (e.g., national lockdowns and the vaccine-mandate debate), indicating tactical appeals to epistemic authority. References to science were initially scarce rather than hostile, but evolved into a selective, strategic endorsement: protest communities increasingly cherry-picked scientific claims to delegitimize containment measures (foremost, vaccination) while sidelining evidence contradicting their narrative. The findings show that, even among actors who reject official institutions, appeals to scientific language are strategically deployed as a discursive resource.

Scientists and experts using social media platforms to engage with the public risk negative public feedback, potentially harming their efforts. This paper addresses how negative user comments affect experts’ trustworthiness and the messages’ credibility depending on whether they frame their message as scientific versus anecdotal using an online study with a 2 (evidence type: scientific vs. anecdotal) x 3 (comments: neutral, negative-factual, negative-emotional) between-subjects design. The results suggest that relying on scientific evidence when engaging in emotionally charged discourses is beneficial. Negative-emotional comments have a significant negative impact on trustworthiness, which is especially pronounced when using anecdotal evidence.

While social media has been praised for youth engagement with science, evidence of its impacts remains fragmented. This scoping review reports on the impacts of social-media-based science communication on young audiences. A PRISMA-guided database search yielded 2,257 articles, which were screened to include only empirical articles studying social media’s behavioral, attitudinal, and cognitive impacts on audiences, including youth, in science or health contexts. Using Directed Qualitative Content Analysis, the impacts desired, measured, and observed were categorized in the 35 remaining articles. The most desired and measured impact was knowledge gain, while the most observed outcomes were interest and trust in science. Many studies desired specific impacts but failed to measure them. Impactful content was relevant, visually appealing, and emotionally engaging. However, studies recognized that unreliable actors may also manipulate these characteristics to spread misinformation. While many science communicators assume the importance of social-media-based science communication for young audiences, evidence of observed outcomes is limited and specific to platforms and topics. 

In their book Women Scientists in American Television Comedy, the three authors Karina Judd, Bridget Gaul, and Anna-Sophie Jürgens, present their study on how humor is used to portray women scientists in American television comedies such as The Big Bang Theory. The underlying theory and results are interesting to the wider science communication community, but this book might not be the best way to present them.

In an era of digital fragmentation and contested expertise, mediated public trust is under pressure. This study examines how journalists in Germany, Italy, and Lithuania perceive their role amid structural media shifts, politicized environments, and the rise of alternative sources. Drawing on 14 focus group discussions and 8 narrative interviews, we explore how national media systems and professional cultures shape journalistic strategies. Rather than a uniform erosion of trust, journalists report polarization shaped by ideology, platform dynamics, and shifting audience expectations. Many strive to act as trust brokers but face constraints from precarious working conditions, editorial pressures, and fragmented publics. We argue that trust in science journalism depends not only on journalistic practice but on broader systemic conditions, including institutional support, media infrastructures, and audience trust cultures (i.e., prevailing trust norms among different publics). This cross-national comparison advances a more differentiated understanding of how trust is negotiated in contemporary science communication.

This response addresses George Claassen's review of The Palgrave Handbook of Science and Health Journalism. The review raises several salient points; however, the biggest criticism of this work arises from a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Palgrave Handbook series. We wholeheartedly agree that there are lessons for the field of science communication. Engaging with more diverse perspectives and adopting a global lens for exploration of science and health journalism are priorities for the field. These are common themes in the Handbook, which we believe is still a useful resource to help facilitate these much-needed explorations.

 

Publisher's note: this letter refers to Book Review: Palgrave Handbook of Science and Health Journalism

This study explores how YouTube content creators integrate scientific evidence into their videos by analyzing citation patterns across disciplines. The role of other alternative metrics is also considered. We apply Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to compare the citation count of 12,005 research articles from Biotechnology, Psychology, Astrophysics, and Ecology published between 2014 and 2023, including citations sourced from YouTube videos. Our findings provide a characterization of two principal components in evidence citation employed by various science communication stakeholders. The first component enhances a paper's visibility by driving social attention, while the second focuses on its social influence and impact, determined by the paper's quality and scientific relevance.

Science podcasts have become an increasingly popular channel for science communication. Although podcasting has risen in popularity, little is known about why science podcasters choose to pursue this pathway for communication and how they set about achieving their goals for their podcast. Drawing on qualitative data from interviews with 20 science podcasters in Australia, our results reveal that the podcasters are mainly driven by personal factors such as their interest in, enjoyment of, and curiosity about science and that while they employ various tactics to achieve their goals, they do not consciously consider these tactics to be a form of strategic science communication.