Date of publication
Mar 16, 2026
Category:
Commentary
by
Will John Grant
We live in bewildering times. Unusual politicians and political movements are rising to the fore, geopolitical maps are being redrawn, old certainties are collapsing, and knowledge — both good and bad — is flowing differently from ever before. Based on the belief that effective communication of science requires understanding of our communication landscape, in this article I offer a brief `technological tectonics' of our current communication landscape, exploring how shifts in communication technologies have made certain politics and certain flows of knowledge possible. I then offer three paths for action — in reflection, practice and advocacy — for those interested in the communication of science.
Volume 25 • Issue 1 • 2026
Date of publication
Mar 16, 2026
Category:
Commentary
by
Annette Leßmöllmann
,
Fabien Medvecky
Authoritarian populism as a political system is on the global rise. In (what was) Bolsonaro's Brazil, Orbán's Hungary, or Trump's U.S., it yielded or yields a communicative ecosystem loosening ties with truthfulness and challenging a common ground that science has epistemic authority. In our paper we argue that the declining role of truth as a compass in public discourse and decision-making notable in what were seen as stable democracies poses challenges for the way we do science communication and how we do it on a very fundamental level. We suggest there is a need to reconsider assumptions about “good science communication”, and we suggest that science communication should not ignore the fact that both knowledge and communication are inescapably intertwined with power. Specifically, the power play here is about epistemic authority, sometimes even aspired dominance: who gets to have a say over what is considered knowledge? Importantly, this power play is not, in the current environment, being played collaboratively; it is competitive. “How to communicate science” is not the main issue for communicators anymore, but how to create a communicative environment where people listen at all and might consider a scientifically based argument without, from the onset, dismissing it as “woke”, or “unfree”. In this paper, we argue that science communicators should factor in the strategic interactions that inherently exist in the communicative ecosystem. As a framework to help communicators to analyze these interactions and develop decision-making options, we draw on game theory, a branch of rational choice theory that studies strategic interactions where outcomes depend on the choices of all actors involved. Following this logic, we argue that science communication as a field and set of practices could be empowered by using game theory, and we spell out what this might mean.
Volume 25 • Issue 1 • 2026
Date of publication
Mar 16, 2026
Category:
Commentary
by
Michiel van Oudheusden
,
Willemine Willems
Facts may have been declared dead, yet many science communicators continue to fight to keep them alive. At the same time, it is increasingly clear that preserving facts alone is not enough. To secure a meaningful place for science in today's world, science communicators must also develop new strategies that go beyond defending facts to fostering trust and engagement. They must fully embrace the `post-post truth' condition, in which the blurring of fact and opinion has become deeply entrenched in public discourse; and where many no longer know – or care — what constitutes truth. This can be achieved by rethinking science communication as performance beyond content delivery. This means creating aesthetic, existential, sensorial, and other experiences that make engagement with science more about relationships and identity, and less about establishing a common ground of truth. We illustrate what this approach looks like through the Theatre Dialogues of Dissent — a Dutch science communication project on the polarisation surrounding climate change.
Volume 25 • Issue 1 • 2026
Date of publication
Mar 16, 2026
Category:
Commentary
by
Fabien Medvecky
,
Annette Leßmöllmann
In an age of populism, rising authoritarianism and far-right movements that often go hand-in-hand with questioning of scientific knowledge, science communication is challenged to respond. How to foster dialogue and inclusion oriented interaction with publics and stakeholders when powerful people and institutions deny science, or if interlocutors don't share the assumption that science yields valid knowledge? In this commentary set, researchers of science communication analyse the current challenges and suggest answers from different perspectives, trying to brush against the grain in order to explore inspiring ideas. Their suggestions, in a nutshell: (1) Good science communication without a fundamental change in the platform logics of social media platforms will not be possible, and science communicators should fight for a better digital ecosystem. (2) Science communication that is blind to political power play will not be strong enough for rising the voice of science in a power world. (3) Governments need to invest in a resilient and reliable way of communicating in risk and crisis situations, because otherwise science and science communication lose trust. (4) Science communication as a democratic practice could create opportunities for participation in decision processes in order to support and strengthen democracy. (5) Instead of persuading the denialists of science, science communication could adopt values connected with science and empower people to reach their goals with the help of scientific knowledge and practices. (6) Science communication might embrace the performative power of communication in order to persist in a post-truth world. The commentary set highlights crucial aspects of what we see as a communication challenge for dialogue and inclusion oriented science communication and it aims at opening up discussion and debate.
Volume 25 • Issue 1 • 2026
Date of publication
Mar 16, 2026
Category:
Commentary
by
Carolina Moreno-Castro
I was invited by my colleagues, Leßmöllmann and Medvecky, to participate in a set of commentaries on the role of science communication in the post-truth era, which will be published in the Journal of Science Communication. My reflection will focus on how reshaping and promoting official or governmental science communication could help minimise the impact of misinformation on science-related issues, such as climate change, vaccines and artificial intelligence, among others, in the public sphere. Although European and Western governments have increasingly embraced the integration of science communication as a structural and ethical component of their public information strategies, these efforts have mainly centred on fostering dissemination practices led by individual researchers or research teams. However, this approach often overlooks the equally critical role of institutional communication systems, which are incapable of translating scientific knowledge into clear, accessible and actionable information for the broader public. This omission becomes particularly salient during crises when citizens actively seek guidance grounded in scientific evidence and are frequently met with institutional silence, ambiguity or poorly coordinated messaging.
Volume 25 • Issue 1 • 2026
Date of publication
Mar 11, 2026
Category:
Editorial
by
Marina Joubert
,
Michelle Riedlinger
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.
Volume 25 • Issue 1 • 2026
Date of publication
Mar 09, 2026
Category:
Article
by
Teng Lin
,
Yiqing Zhang
With the widespread use of AI-generated content (AIGC) on social media, its potential to spread misinformation poses threats to the public. Although AI disclosure is widely promoted as a transparency measure to prompt critical evaluation, its effectiveness in science communication remains controversial. This study conducted a within-subjects experiment (N = 433) to examine how AI disclosure affects perceived credibility of science communication texts and the moderating roles of readers' negative attitudes towards AI and audience involvement. The experiment manipulated AI disclosure labels and information veracity. The results revealed a truth-falsity crossover effect: AI disclosure significantly reduced the perceived credibility of correct information while unexpectedly increasing the perceived credibility of misinformation. Negative attitudes towards AI significantly moderated these effects, whereas audience involvement exerted only limited influence. These findings highlight the complex and sometimes counterproductive consequences of AI disclosure in science communication and suggest implications for cue-based processing, algorithm aversion, and the design of disclosure mechanisms.
Volume 25 • Issue 1 • 2026
Date of publication
Mar 02, 2026
Category:
Article
by
Rosana Villares
,
Carmen Pérez-Llantada
,
Oana Maria Carciu
The digitalisation of science communication has been widely promoted within the Open Science movement in Europe to foster the social impact of research, as well as a more participatory culture of science. Using semi-structured interviews, we explore Spanish women scientists' values and perceptions regarding digital science communication. Results highlight the social value of science communication as well as intrinsic motivation as factors to actively engage in disseminating, educating and promoting science digitally. Adopting Open Science principles, participants craft open access multimodal materials (e.g., educational short videos, podcasts), use supporting multimodal resources and digital tools, and engage in social media to reach broad audiences. Finally, we propose some policy recommendations and pedagogical guidelines in terms of digital literacy, digital genres, and science accommodation strategies to promote digital science communication.
Volume 25 • Issue 1 • 2026
Date of publication
Feb 23, 2026
Category:
Article
by
Isabel Sörensen
,
Sophia Charlotte Volk
,
Silke Fürst
,
Mike S. Schäfer
,
Daniel Vogler
Universities are pivotal in contemporary knowledge societies, bridging science and society. Amidst societal transformations, communication has become crucial for higher education institutions (HEIs). Yet, research on university communication is limited, with few studies capturing long-term developments. This qualitative study addresses this gap by examining changes in university communication departments over the past decade in Switzerland. Semi-structured interviews with 30 communication practitioners and university leaders in eight HEIs reveal that university communication has diversified with regard to digital channels and stakeholders, intensified in terms of personnel and output, and professionalized. Moreover, some, albeit not all communication departments have increasingly aligned their communication strategies with university strategies. Despite the fact that “everything has changed”, differences exist among various types and clusters of universities. This study contributes to understanding how and why long-term changes in institutional science communication emerge. It also offers insights for communication practitioners for enhancing university communication processes and structures.
Volume 25 • Issue 1 • 2026
Date of publication
Feb 16, 2026
Category:
Practice Insight
by
Eleanor S Armstrong
,
Doris Erhard
,
Manuela Gallistl
,
Sarah Rosenbicher
,
Christian Klösch
“What might our lives in outer space look like in the future? And how will those lives be shaped by gender?” These were the questions that directed students in a science communication activity in the Vienna Museum of Science and Technology in 2024. This Practice Insight reflects on this project and demonstrates how an expansive focus on gender in the long-term engagement project allowed student participants to challenge and pluralize normative masculinities of outer space futures, instead envisaging cosmic lives that supported traditional women's crafts, or gender-inclusive third spaces and city design. Rather than framing “women” and “girls” as the only subject for gender-oriented activities, this project encouraged students and educators to recognize that gender is done many different ways by different groups in societies. The paper provides prompts to readers to support them implementing similar transformations in their own science communication practices.
Volume 25 • Issue 1 • 2026
