Volume 25 • Issue 6 • 2026

As submissions to JCOM continue to rise and high-quality peer reviews become harder to secure, this editorial sets out what the journal's editors look for in a manuscript at each stage of the review process. It outlines the desk-review and peer-review criteria we apply, namely: scope and relevance; novelty and originality; grounding in existing scholarship; article type and formatting requirements; methodological rigour; openness and transparency; quality of writing and referencing; and clear declaration of any AI use. Written for prospective authors, it offers practical guidance for preparing a strong submission and reaffirms JCOM's commitment, as a diamond open-access journal, to publish rigorous, relevant and diverse science communication research and practice.

The history of women in Australian science communication has thus far received little attention. While there is a growing body of research on the history of Australian women in western science, scholarship on the early history of colonial science communication in Australia is scarce, and research on women's roles in the field even more so. Despite this research gap, several colonial women played critical roles in educating on and communicating science to Australians from the 1830s through to the 1930s, particularly their fellow women and children. They took on various science communication roles that sometimes differed from men's approaches, such as scientific administration, visual artistry, and domestic education, and have therefore been overlooked. This article makes these science communication activities visible and aims to be a starting a point for filling the gap in the literature on the history of women in Australian science communication. It also aims to broaden the understanding of what counts as science communication.

As an online platform for scientists to share their expertise with diverse audiences within a journalistic context, The Conversation provides a novel link between science and society. This study examines the benefits and barriers experienced by researchers who write for the African edition of this platform. We analysed 3560 author profiles, 5392 articles, and conducted 21 interviews with authors. We found that authors were motivated mainly by moral duty but also wanted to enhance the policy impact of their work. Becoming an author was perceived as beneficial for visibility, networking, and career development. Key barriers included time constraints, concerns about oversimplification, and a lack of institutional rewards. Authors valued the editorial process that allowed them to initiate an article and control the final version before publication. The study contributes to understanding how researchers experience and engage with novel science communication platforms.

So far, incidental exposure (IE) to science information has been largely overlooked although science information can inform individually and societally relevant decisions. Semi-structured interviews with 19 social media users revealed that most participants believed IE to science information being largely algorithmically driven. Participants reported that content processing and engagement heavily depend on personal relevance and interest while content engagement is mostly passive. Participants commonly relied on trust, familiarity, and verification strategies to assess credibility as they were aware of misinformation. Although scarcely reported, IE to science information can inform decision-making. This exploratory study highlights shared mechanisms of IE across domains and provides a foundation for future quantitative research.

Citizen science (CS) is a participatory mode of knowledge production, enabling non-scientific actors to contribute to and sometimes contest scientific agendas and interpretations, making it a way to bridge science and society. This paper examines how that potential unfolds by analysing the individual perspectives of citizen scientists through the lens of Psychological Distance to Science (PSYDISC). Drawing on three case studies of contested environmental CS, we identify which contextual aspects of CS shape citizen scientists' experiences of social, spatial, temporal, or hypothetical distance to relevant science, and how these experiences may relate to trust. Our findings underscore the role of science communication as both a channel for dissemination, and as a constitutive element of participatory research; crucial for reducing psychological distance and enabling socially robust knowledge production, especially in contested, policy-relevant science settings.

This review examines the second edition of Creative Research Communication by Clare Wilkinson and Emma Weitkamp. The updated edition provides a comprehensive introduction to research communication, combining theoretical perspectives with practical guidance. It covers topics such as public engagement, digital communication, policy engagement, inclusivity, professionalisation and generative AI. The review discusses the book's contribution as an accessible and timely resource for researchers, students and communication professionals.

The Joint Research Centre's recent report offers communicators ten actionable recommendations organised around a “trustworthiness-first” principle: that communicators should build trust by being trustworthy rather than by deploying trust-building as a strategic technique. The report draws on behavioural science, values-based audience segmentation, and original empirical research, and takes a firm stand against manipulation. Its central weakness is that trustworthiness and trust have a weaker empirical relationship than the report acknowledges: being trustworthy does not reliably produce trust, and can sometimes paradoxically decrease trust Hyde2025,Hyde2026c.