29/09/2015

Highlighting the value of impact evaluation: enhancing informal science learning and public engagement theory and practice

King et al. [2015] argue that ‘emphasis on impact is obfuscating the valuable role of evaluation’ in informal science learning and public engagement (p. 1). The article touches on a number of important...

29/09/2015

Comment

Evaluating impact and quality of experience in the 21st century: using technology to narrow the gap between science communication research and practice

Eric Jensen

Access to high quality evaluation results is essential for science communicators to identify negative patterns of audience response and improve outcomes. However, there are many good reasons why robust evaluation linked is not routinely conducted and linked to science...

13/03/2014

Comment

The problems with science communication evaluation

Eric Jensen

Even in the best-resourced science communication institutions, poor quality evaluation methods are routinely employed. This leads to questionable data, specious conclusions and stunted growth in the quality and effectiveness of science communication practice. Good impact evaluation requires...

JCOM Reader Survey

We would like to understand more about JCOM’s readers: we are interested in your views and how the journal could meet your needs! We would be grateful if you could complete our short survey.

Read more about JCOM Reader Survey

How to get published in Science Communication journals

Want tips on getting published? Check out this video where Emma Weitkamp and Hans Peter Peters talk about getting published in Science Communication journals.

Click here to see the full video.

Read more about How to get published in Science Communication journals

Visits by country

United States	19.1 %
Philippines	10.3 %
Italy	9.7 %
China	7.9 %
United Kingdom	5.8 %
Germany	5.6 %
Spain	3.0 %
Australia	2.7 %
India	2.7 %
Canada	2.6 %
Brazil	2.6 %
Netherlands	2.4 %
Indonesia	1.6 %
Portugal	1.5 %
France	1.1 %
Others	21.2 %