Search

Jul 08, 2026 Commentary

EDITORIAL: Scholars Under Attack — Navigating the dark side of public engagement and science communication in a politicised (online) environment

by Birte Fähnrich , Carla Almeida , Clemens Dietrich Blümel , Mr Daniel Edler , Benedikt Fecher , Mr Niels G. Mede , Nataliia Sokolovska

Hostility towards science has emerged as a significant challenge in contemporary science communication, particularly in increasingly politicised and digitally mediated public environments. Scholars across diverse disciplines are confronted with harassment, delegitimisation, political interference, disinformation, and personal attacks, especially when engaging in public communication. This editorial introduces the JCOM commentary set “Scholars Under Attack” and situates hostility towards science within broader transformations of media ecosystems, political polarisation, and contested epistemic authority. The article argues that current debates remain conceptually fragmented and empirically underdeveloped, with limited comparative and longitudinal evidence regarding the scope, forms, and consequences of hostility directed at researchers. To address these gaps, the editorial proposes a working definition of hostility towards science as practices, discourses, and actions that undermine the authority, credibility, or integrity of scientific actors, knowledge, and institutions in politicised public arenas. The commentary set brings together interdisciplinary and international perspectives from Europe, the Americas, Africa, and Australia, highlighting how experiences of hostility vary across political systems, institutional contexts, disciplines, and social identities. The contributions examine online harassment, gendered hostility, misinformation, academic freedom, institutional shortcomings, and the paradoxical dynamics of visibility in digital communication. Collectively, they emphasise the need for more systematic empirical research, stronger institutional support structures, and nuanced conceptual approaches that distinguish hostility from legitimate critique while recognising the democratic importance of public science communication.

Walking the line: balancing benefits of public engagement against the risks of harassment and attack

by Jana Laura Egelhofer, Mr Niels G. Mede, Fabien Medvecky, Dr Thomas James Carruthers, Alice Fleerackers, Miguel Garcia-Guerrero and Mr Bernard Okebe

The erosion of academic freedom in Venezuela: international human rights law, authoritarian practice, and implications for knowledge communication

by Mr Ricardo Villalobos Fontalvo and Dr David Gomez Gamboa

The price of speaking out: European landscape of online hate and harassment

by Atte Oksanen

Patterns of attacks against scholars in Germany: controversial topics as contexts and accelerators of science hostility

by Clemens Dietrich Blümel and Ennio Noél Brandt

Beyond incivility: supporting scientists' efforts to correct misinformation online

by Ashley A. Anderson, Nicole Kelp and Sera Choi

From visibility to vulnerability: how women scientists face gendered hostility in science communication

by Dr Maider Eizmendi Iraola and Mr Simón Peña-Fernandez

The engagement paradox: how negative feedback shapes visibility-oriented science communication on TikTok

by Tinca Lukan and Benedikt Fecher

Scientists under fire: lessons from the Omicron case

by Mrs Kim Darley Waddilove, Nothando Ngwenya and Marina Joubert

Beyond expectation: institutional and structural shortfalls in supporting scholars engaged in science communication

by Josephine B. Schmitt and Sabine Reich

Volume 25Issue 42026

Jul 08, 2026 Commentary

Beyond incivility: supporting scientists' efforts to correct misinformation online

by Ashley A. Anderson , Nicole Kelp , Sera Choi

Correction of misinformation is a top priority for scientific organizations. Concern over misinformation is particularly prominent in social media, which is characterized by incivility. Because correcting misinformation online can expose scientists to uncivil responses or personal attacks, understanding barriers and motivations to correct misinformation among individual scientists is critical to identifying how institutions can best support scientists to maintain engagement in public communication of science. In this commentary, we review survey data of scientists at land-grant universities in the United States ($n = 413$) and find that a tendency to self-censor is not related to scientists' propensity to correct misinformation in social media. Deliberative aspirations, however — or the prospect of opening up peoples' minds to other perspectives — are related to behavioral intentions to correct misinformation for women scientists, in particular, as shown by a significant gender interaction effect. We conclude with specific recommendations that support motivations aligned with deliberative aspirations.

Volume 25Issue 42026

Jul 08, 2026 Commentary

The erosion of academic freedom in Venezuela: international human rights law, authoritarian practice, and implications for knowledge communication

by Mr Ricardo Villalobos Fontalvo , Dr David Gomez Gamboa

This commentary examines the tension between the recent consolidation of academic freedom as a human right in international and Inter-American law and its systematic erosion under authoritarian regimes, using Venezuela as a paradigmatic case. Drawing on General Comment No. 13, the Inter-American Principles on Academic Freedom and University Autonomy, and an operational framework developed in regional monitoring, it analyses how Venezuelan state policies, legal and institutional engineering, criminalisation and repression, economic strangulation and judicial interference, undermine core attributes of academic freedom CESCR1999,IACHR2021a. It shows how these measures reshape the ecosystem of science communication by narrowing who can speak, what can be researched and how knowledge circulates in society. The commentary concludes by identifying gaps in regional and international protection, highlighting comparative data from the Academic Freedom Index, and proposing pathways to strengthen academic-freedom safeguards and democratic science communication in the Americas.

Volume 25Issue 42026

Jul 08, 2026 Commentary

The price of speaking out: European landscape of online hate and harassment

by Atte Oksanen

Hostile online communication is an increasing concern in academia. This commentary focuses on online harassment victims in Finland and online harassment perpetration in Europe. Data are drawn from representative surveys of Finnish academic research and teaching staff and national samples from Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and Poland. In Finland, 30% of academics reported online harassment within the past 6 months. Victims were disproportionately senior staff, minorities, and those in the social sciences and humanities. Only approximately 18% of the perpetrators were a member of the respondent's work community at their university. Public engagement in the media heightened risk. Victims reported more distress, lower trust, and weaker workplace support. Across Europe, men reported having sent offensive or threatening online messages more commonly. Perpetration was associated with younger age, psychological distress, and higher online involvement. These findings highlight the need to strengthen institutional support and improve digital culture to protect academic freedom and well-being.

Volume 25Issue 42026

Jul 08, 2026 Commentary

Patterns of attacks against scholars in Germany: controversial topics as contexts and accelerators of science hostility

by Clemens Dietrich Blümel , Ennio Noél Brandt

In this commentary, we examine patterns of attacks against scholars focusing on the case of Germany. Drawing on the responses to open and closed questions in a recent survey of 2,600 German researchers, we identify context- and field-specific patterns of science hostility. While most responding researchers do not experience severe attacks, those engaged in specific fields may be at a higher risk of being threatened. We argue that attacks on researchers may not be perceived as acts of hostility against scientific institutions but rather emerge in the context of controversial topics. By drawing from material of open-ended questions, we provide context of such controversial topics in Germany. Our results suggest that these topics are disputed not only in public forums, but also in academic contexts — and not always appropriately. Such controversies both affect and transcend higher education institutions, as attacks can also originate from researchers themselves. Furthermore, our material suggests that scholars are concerned about how expertise is, or should be, represented in these contexts, and about how deliberation on these topics on campus can be upheld.

Volume 25Issue 42026

Jul 06, 2026 Article

Mass media use and public attitudes toward quantum science

by Ming Wang

This study examines how information sources are indirectly related to support for quantum science. Results from a national survey of quantum science aware publics in the United States (n = 919) showed that TV news use was negatively associated with interest and knowledge and positively associated with benefit and risk perceptions. By contrast, print/online media use and social media use were positively associated with interest and knowledge. Social media use was also positively associated with risk perception. Notably, benefit perception had the strongest association with support for quantum science. These findings suggest complex relationships between media use and attitudes toward quantum science.

Volume 25Issue 42026

Jul 01, 2026 Book Review

Bringing the invisible to light: a review of “Invisible Rainbows”

by Andrea Bandelli

Invisible Rainbows is a popular astronomy book by astrophysicist and science journalist Alfredo Carpineti, organised around the electromagnetic spectrum and built around conversations with LGBTQIA+ astronomers from around the world. It is, at the same time, a celebration of modern astronomy and a clear argument about the relationship between science and the society that produces it. The book is rigorous and warm in equal measure, never letting one undermine the other, and offers science communicators a strong example of how popular science writing can hold technical depth and political clarity on the same page.

Volume 25Issue 42026

Jun 29, 2026 Letter

A response to: “Does science communication have its goals wrong? From persuading science skeptics to promoting scientific empowerment” — A defense of certain types of persuasion

by John C Besley , Sara K. Yeo , Anthony Dudo , Shupei Yuan

This response to the commentary “Does science communication have its goals wrong? From persuading science skeptics to promoting scientific empowerment” argues that the field would benefit from more attention to the persuasion literature, not less. A primary element of this argument is that a nuanced understanding of persuasion research can provide opportunities to achieve a wide range of goals — including empowering others — in ethical, evidence-based ways.

Publisher's note: this letter refers to Does science communication have its goals wrong? From persuading science skeptics to promoting scientific empowerment

Volume 25Issue 42026

Jun 24, 2026 Practice Insight

International Astronomical Union General Assembly 2024: a case study on social media outreach and open access in large-scale scientific conferences

by Andrea Girolamodibari , Dr Vanessa Moss

This report presents an analysis of the communication efforts of the XXXII International Astronomical Union General Assembly, the first held on the African continent. For the first time in its history, the conference provided a fully streamed, open access experience on YouTube, complemented by a robust, multi-platform social media outreach campaign. Through metrics analysis and survey results, our study evaluates the effectiveness of diverse digital initiatives in enhancing engagement on different social media platforms to democratise scientific discourse. These findings offer critical insights for future hybrid and virtual conferences, providing social media metrics, best practices analysis and evaluation for social media scientific global communication of large-scale scientific gatherings.

Volume 25Issue 42026

Jun 22, 2026 Practice Insight

Communicating EU-funded projects: a comparison of communication activities in research projects funded under Horizon 2020 and led by Portuguese and Polish institutions

by Dr Luis Arboledas-Lérida

This paper analyses the communication activities conducted within the framework of research projects funded under Horizon 2020, with more than €1M in funding, and led by Portuguese or Polish institutions. A total of 221 initiatives (68 Poland-led and 153 Portugal-led) are examined. The primary finding is that the majority of projects do not engage in communication activities. Web presence is observed in 41.1% of Poland-led projects and 41.8% of Portugal-led projects. In turn, social media presence is more common among Portugal-led (44.4%) than among Poland-led (29%) initiatives. Outreach activities are not very prominent, with a frequency of 28.1% and 23.5%, respectively. These figures improve slightly to moderately when controlling for projects' end date. Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to test the influence of funding on communication activities. The relationship is positive across the board and reveals a potential effect, although it is statistically significant only for Portugal-led projects. These findings invite us to reconsider `legal obligation' to communicate the project and its outcomes that has become the norm in most grant funding, and provide a more nuanced understanding of the differences between `developed' and `developing' science communication landscapes.

Volume 25Issue 42026

Search results