With this commentary JCOM continues its analysis of the transformations of science journalism in the new media ecology. The purpose of the papers we present here is enriching the discussion raised in past issues and giving the Science communication community new insights on the role of digital media in shaping the way science is communicated, distributed and discussed by new actors and with new publics. What is the future of science journalism in the new ecosystem? In “Has blogging changed science writing?” Alice Bell discusses blogs' impact on science journalism, arguing that in some areas the changes related to the emergence of the web are overstated. Rather than crystal ball gazing into the future, we should realize it is up for debate. In “Web 2.0: netizen empowerment vs. unpaid labor” Carlo Formenti goes further, casting doubts on the utopian fantasies of knowledge democratization and urging us to focus on the new forms of power concentration and exploitation that are emerging within the system of science communication. Finally, in “The future of science journalism in Ghana” Bernard Appiah and colleagues argue in favour of the potential of the web as a tool to increase the quality and quantity of African science journalism. Yet they warn us: issues of access to both information and resources are still in place and threaten the promises of digital media.

Scientific information looks to Web 2.0 models as an opportunity for shedding the constraints of traditional scientific publishing (high costs, slow processing, domination by elites). However, outcomes in the other fields that have preceded it along this path (open source communities, file sharing networks, citizen journalism), have cast several doubts on utopian fantasies about the “democratization” of information and knowledge. So far Web 2.0 has actually witnessed new forms of concentrations of resources and innovative ways for the commercial exploitation of collective creativity.

Despite the boom in science journalism in developing countries, little is known about the views of reporters in Sub-Saharan Africa on the future of science journalism. This commentary, based on a recent survey of 151 Ghanaian journalists, focuses on the journalists' wishes for the future of science journalism in Ghana and on ways that the power of the Web can be harnessed to help achieve those wishes. Many of the surveyed journalists indicated that the inadequate access to contact information for scientific researchers was a barrier to science reporting. Most journalists (80.8%) indicated that they would like to increase the amount of science journalism in Ghana in the next decade. Two specifically mentioned that information and communication technology can help increase the amount of science journalism in the next decade. We believe that use of the Web can increase the quantity and quality of science journalism in Ghana, both by facilitating information gathering and by serving as a medium of science communication. Education of journalists regarding use of the Web will be important in this regard.

Rather than crystal ball gazing into the future of science journalism, this essay invites critical discussion over how much, if at all, has the web changed the way science is discussed in public? The short answer is no, or only slightly. Drawing on basic tenants of the social studies of technology, I argue there have always been more options than action when it comes to innovation in science writing. This essay takes three stories of the impact of the web on science journalism which I believe to be overstated, as well as three areas where I do think we can see change. None are clear-cut, as my chief aim here is to argue that our future is up for debate.

The paper investigates diversity in terms of interest and goals in international research in Physical Education (PE). This investigation is based on publications in PE indexed in three major international databases, namely Medline, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). To identify these publications in Medline, we searched for “physical education and training”. As for the WoS and Scopus, we searched for “physical education” in the title, abstract or key-word. We also searched for “physical education” in the affiliation address only in the Scopus database, which we describe as Scopus-Afill. Using these strategies, we found 2,257 documents in Medline, 6,107 in WoS, 8,807 in Scopus and 5,838 in Scopus – Affil. for the 1991-2005 period. Our findings offer evidence that PE research is mostly associated with biological and medical sciences. However, our results show that the field is multifaceted when it comes to the nature of PE contributions to knowledge.

This paper explores the idea of the post-museum as an immersive knowledge experience facilitating conceptual and strategic directions in public engagement with science and technology. It considers the extent to which the museum has evolved from repository of cultural artefacts to experience-based process of knowledge acquisition and production. The post-museum is invoked as a model of participatory pedagogy that moves beyond traditional forms of learning, knowledge acquisition and knowledge interface, and conceptualisations of the learner in science. It is presented as an educational and recreational experience, which locates and translates knowledge to the novice or non-traditional patron using rich social narratives that ground scientific expertise in the practice of everyday life. The experience of science is thus made familiar and relevant and concurrently regulated and owned by the visitor. The learner is consequently recast from passive recipient of information-bites to choreographer, translator and innovator within a scientific knowledge continuum.

Most accounts of an ideal scientific discourse proscribe ad hominem appeals as one way to distinguish it from public discourse. Because of their frequent use of ad hominem attacks, the Climategate email messages provoked strong criticisms of climate scientists and climate science. This study asks whether the distinction between public and scientific discourse holds in this case and thus whether the exclusion of ad hominem arguments from scientific discourse is valid. The method of analysis comes from the field of informal logic in which argument fallacies like the ad hominem are classified and assessed. The approach in this study focuses on a functional analysis of ad hominem—their uses rather than their classification. The analysis suggests three distinct functional uses of ad hominem remarks among the Climategate emails: (1) indirect, (2) tactical, and (3) meta-. Consistent with previous research on ad hominem arguments in both public and scientific discourse, these results reinforce the common opinion of their fallacious character. Only the remarks of the last type, the meta- ad hominem, seemed to be non-fallacious in that they might help to preempt the very use of ad hominem attacks in scientific discourse.

At first glance it all seems so easy – scientists create new knowledge, and through their work they show which statements about the world are true and which are false. Science journalists pass these new discoveries on so that as many people as possible can learn about them and understand them. Prior to publication, it is the job of "fact checkers" to examine the journalists' texts to ensure that all the facts are correctly represented. In reality, however, the relationship between the actors is by far more complicated. Using my experience as fact checker of scientific texts for the news magazine "DER SPIEGEL", I would like to comment in this essay on where I see the main problems of fact checking in scientific journalism to be, and on the changes that have come about through the use of the Internet and the availability of smartphones and tablet computers.

Among the most interesting aspects of the changes in the media ecosystem a leading role is played by the impact of digital and networking technologies on the ways news reports are built. In this Jcom commentary, the issues of the relationship between digital storytelling and professional news production will focus on science journalism. The commentary will deal with theoretical reflections and practical examples of innovative experiences in which different narration methods were exploited for scientific information.

The globalised digital media ecosystem can be characterised as both dynamic and disruptive. Developments in digital technologies relate closely to emerging social practices. In turn these are influencing, and are influenced by, the political economy of professional media and user-generated content, and the introduction of political and institutional governance and policies. Together this wider context provides opportunities and challenges for science communication practitioners and researchers. The globalised digital media ecosystem allows for, but does not guarantee, that a wider range of range of contributors can participate in storytelling about the sciences. At the same time, new tools are emerging that facilitate novel ways of representing digital data. As a result, researchers are reconceptualising ideas about the relationship between practices of production, content and consumption. In this paper I briefly explore whether storytelling about the sciences is becoming more distributed and participatory, shifting from communication to conversation and confrontation.