A new editorial board is guiding JCOM through a period of change and here opens out the discussion on what JCOM has become and what it could or should become in the future. The journal's readers are invited to make their contributions.

This study assesses the correlation between reports on food risk published in scientific journals and in the printed mass media and changes in the meat market. It focuses on the case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the United Kingdom. The findings suggest that during the time BSE and its related human disease were of noticeable public concern, there was a predominantly negative correlation between the number of reports on BSE published in the British printed mass media and meat market variables. In contrast, reports of scientific research on the disease contributed to reducing the perception of food risk because these numbers correlated positively with the meat market.

Agriculture has adopted many scientific innovations that have improved productivity. The majority of innovations in agriculture have been communicated to end users through a simple diffusion and dissemination model. However, as the science underpinning the innovations becomes more complex, research and development organizations need to look at better ways to communicate their innovation to end users. This paper examines innovations in the beef industry in Australia and investigates how complex innovations are being communicated and identifies the nature and level of communication with end users and the role of intermediaries. The findings support the need for greater involvement of end users in the innovation development process and a more vibrant two-way communication process between scientists, intermediaries and end users. The results also suggest that the traditional diffusion processes are insufficient to ensure high levels of awareness and adoption.

In terms of efficiency, managing the effects of overpublising (the sheer volume of new papers published each week) has become seriously challenging for science communication researchers. This comment analyzes causes and consequences of this situation and proposes to research journals to take into considerations the following elements: a) special attention to headline and abstract, b) more visible and updated keywords and c) a clear structure of content and a shortening of the average number of pages per paper.

Communicating science to scientists works well thanks to well-defined communication structures based on both printed material in peer-reviewed publications   and oral presentations, e.g.\ at conferences and seminars. However, when science is communicated to practitioners, the structures become fuzzy. We are   looking at how to implement Web2.0 technologies to Danish seed scientists communicating to seed consultants, agricultural advisors, and seed growers, and  we are met with the challenge of securing effective knowledge diffusion to the community. Our investigation's focal point is on Rogers' theoretical framework  ``Diffusion of Innovation'' (DOI), as we look at how DOI may affect the Danish seed industry if science communication is redesigned in accordance with the  framework. During our project workshop, participants recognized trends and characteristics from DOI in the Danish seed community and argued for more  collaboration between scientists and practitioners. This can be done by implementing fast-learning via online website, but it needs to be assisted by   slower-paced face-to-face learning to lessen the risk of a digital knowledge divide within the community.

The science&art research played an important role in the topics covered by JCOM because actually the convergence of languages and themes of art and science increasingly continue to act synergistically in the most diverse knowledge fields.

This paper brings some reflections on JCOM and, in general on a science communication journal, from the perspective of the developing world. It is highlighted the following top aspects of JCOM: open access; the language, that is, the fact that authors can write in their own languages and the article is translated into English; and the fact that JCOM welcomes contributions from every part of the world. The author considers JCOM a unique journal, which approaches science communication in a rich way and keeping a welcome intellectual diversity.

Three possibilities are suggested by the author that aims to improve the quality of Science Communication. These are quicker responses to the contemporary issues, adding more short articles so as to enrich and enlarge information, and focuses on some special issues aiming to discuss one topic from different perspectives. The author also gives two examples of special issues of science communication.

This short comment presents a few suggestions for the enrichment of JCOM seen from the perspective of an informal learning expert.

JCOM can enhance its contribution to the science communication community by greater rigour in selection and editing and by opening up to reader comment.