How to create visual abstracts for publications and science communication

Message from the Executive Director: Interview with Britta Voss and Kylla Marie Benes, ASLO 2016 Science Communication Interns

Preface: The changing face of science communication John K. Gilbert and Susan M. Stocklmayer I. Models of science communication - theory into practice 1. Towards a 'design approach' to science communication Masakata Ogawa 2. Engagement with science: models of science communication Susan M. Stocklmayer II: Challenges in communicating science 3. Scientists' engagement with the public Suzette D. Searle 4. The role of science and technology in public policy. What is knowledge for? Will J Grant 5. Negotiating public resistance to engagement in science and technology Lindy Orthia III. Major themes in science communication 6. Communicating the significance of risk Craig Trumbo 7. Quantitative literacy in science communication Maurice M.W. Cheng, Ka Lok Wong, Arthur Man Sang Lee, Ida Ah Chee Mok 8. Ethics and accountability in science and technology Rod Lamberts 9. Beliefs and the value of evidence Michael J. Reiss IV. Informal learning 10. Helping learning in science communication John K. Gilbert 11. Science communication and science education Sean Perera and Susan M. Stocklmayer 12. The practice of science and technology communication in science museums Leonie J Rennie V. Communication of contemporary issues in science and society 13. Communicating global climate change: issues and dilemmas Justin Dillon and Marie Hobson 14. Science communication during a short-term crisis: the case of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) Yeung Chung Lee 15. Communication challenges for sustainability Julia B. Corbett 16. The value of Indigenous Knowledge Systems in the 21st Century Yonah Seleti 17. Science communication: The consequences of being human Chris Bryant VI. Further exploration

The documents preserve the social experience of the humanity and, thus, provide concentrated knowledge to the society and individuals, help to transfer experience to the future generations. The goal of the article is to analyze the documentation (research) as an interdisciplinary branch of science and study area, its place and role within the system of communication and informatikon sciences. The main attention should be focused on the influence of the archival research and its interaction with other branches. The documentation research is a basic discipline that helps to transfer a complex of general theoretical knowledge in educating the bachelors of information and communication science. Without regard to a chosen direction of studies, each student has to acquire knowledge about a document and documentary communication. They have to be able to understand different concepts of a document that are used abroad and our country. The definition and place of documentation research is an important issue discussed by the scientists. During the last 10–15 years it turned into a general university discipline taught in many departments of humanities and social sciences abroad. The quick spread and development of documentation research has instigated discussions about its place within the system of sciences. As an autonomous branch of science documentation research has a place among other branches within the system of communication and information sciences. It investigates the stucture, atributes, and functions of a document. The document becomes a general concept in communication and informatikon sciences. That allows us to treat documentation research as an interdisciplinary branch of science.

The fields of entomology, geospatial science, and science communication are understaffed in many areas, resulting in poor community awareness and heightened risks of vector-borne diseases. This is especially true in East Tennessee, where La Crosse encephalitis (LACE) causes pediatric illness each year. In response to these problems, we created a community engagement program that includes a yearlong academy for secondary STEM educators in the 6-12 grade classroom. The objectives of this program were to support inquiry-driven classroom learning to foster student interest in STEM fields, produce community-driven mosquito surveillance, and enhance community awareness of LACE. We trained educators in medical entomology, geospatial science, and science communication, and they incorporated those skills into lesson plans for a mosquito oviposition experiment that tested hypotheses developed in the classroom. Here, we share results from the first two years of the MEGA:BITESS academy, tailored for our community by having students ask questions directly related to Aedes mosquito oviposition biology and La Crosse encephalitis. In year one, we recruited 17 educators to participate in the project, and 15 of those educators returned in year two. All participating educators completed the academy, conducted the oviposition experiment, and informed over 400 students about a variety of careers and disciplines for their students. Here, we present a community-based program that helps to address the problems associated with long-term mosquito surveillance, health and science education and communication, career opportunities, and the community needs of Appalachia, as well as the initial data on the effectiveness of two years of an educator-targeted professional-development program.

Science and technology have been developing at a great pace. There are numerous breakthrough innovations and groundbreaking improvements in almost every aspect of life. Undoubtedly, another field experiencing such a fast development is communication. Communication has been following and adapting related technological developments not only in terms of software and hardware but also in terms of targeting the right audience and creating the audience interaction. While developments in science and technology feed communication, communication disseminates the outcomes of innovative studies to the defined target groups. Science communication becomes a part of this mutual relation. This study is focused on research funds, opportunities, and international networks in the field of science communication. Within this context, challenges in research activities and expected impact of research outcomes will be examined in terms of science communication. Also, the role and importance of networks in science communication will be examined in line with research funds and support provided for this field.

This is a PLOS Computational Biology Methods paper. There are clear moral and professional imperatives for scientists to participate in communicating their research to the public [1] [2] [3] . Many scientists want to share their findings and excitement of science or encourage interest and appreciation of their work. They may want to improve the public's understanding of their field or dispel misinformation. They may also be curious about how their work is viewed by society and benefit from interacting with new ideas and perspectives. Increasingly, science communication is a formal responsibility for researchers as funding bodies and institutions encourage or even require scientists to engage in science communication or outreach work (Broader Impacts for National Science Foundation grants, NSERC's PromoScience program, etc.). Despite there being many excellent reasons for scientists to engage in science communication, they often lack the tools to do so. Explicit training in nonexpert communication remains uncommon in graduate programs (though this is improving; [4]), as programs typically prioritize the development of scientist-to-scientist communication skills such as conference presentations and peer-reviewed articles. Scientists frequently cite lack of training and/or confidence in their science communication skills as a barrier to their participation in public-facing activities [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] . At the same time, there are ample opportunities for scientists to engage in science communication as a part of their official duties, as a secondary career (freelancing), or as a volunteer. As experts in their field, scientists can contribute through interviews in the media, writing op-eds or books for the popular press (see [9] for specific guidance on writing popular science books), public seminars or interactive events, social media posts (see [10] for specific suggestions on how to get started on Twitter as scientist), and other modalities. I am a postdoctoral fellow and freelance science writer and editor. Here, I describe 10 simple rules for planning, developing, and evaluating science communication activities. Though I focus on scientists communicating with nonscientists, much of the advice applies to other forms of science communication such as expert-to-expert communication (e.g., talks and posters at conferences). As my goal is to guide inexperienced scientist-science communicators through the practical basics of getting started with science communication, the rules are ordered to encourage a step-by-step process (but note the integrative nature of science communication activities, Rule 10). Science communication activities can serve a variety of functions, including informing others about a topic, discussing a potential solution to a problem, advocating for a policy change, or correcting misinformation. The first step of any science communication activity is establishing the ultimate goal(s) of the activity, as all subsequent decisions to be made (selecting a mode of

For over a decade, the Biochemical Society has looked to identify and celebrate outstanding science communication talent in molecular biosciences with an annual Science Communication Competition. In 2020, to mark the 10th anniversary of this scheme, the Biochemical Society renamed its Science Communication Competition as the ‘Biochemical Society Science Communication Prize’.The prize has always attracted an international portfolio of engaging and creative voices, and the 2021 edition was no exception. Entries had to be bioscience themed and aimed at the general public and were accepted as written pieces of up to 1500 words or in a media format – such as video or audio, 2–5 minutes long – across two categories: one open to foundation/undergraduate students and another to postgraduate students.The Biochemical Society and the prize judges were impressed with the number of very high standard entries, making competition for this year’s prize as fierce as in previous rounds. These entries were judged by a panel of four experts across science communication practice: Dr Heather Doran (Public Engagement Manager at the Leverhulme Centre for Forensic Science, University of Dundee, and Science Editor for The Biochemist), Dr Sorrel Bunting (Head of Communities and Engagement at Springer Nature Group), Dr Anthea Lacchia (freelance science writer and journalist, audio producer and science communicator) and Joe Burton (Education and Public Engagement Manager at the Linnean Society).The Society is pleased to celebrate the 2021 Biochemical Society Science Communication Prize winners, all of them video entries! The winners of each category receives a cash prize – £300 for the first prize, £200 for the second prize and £100 for the third prize – and access to a mentoring session with an experienced science communicator who can provide advice based on their own career experiences. This prize follows a continued recognition from the Biochemical Society of the importance of science communication and outreach practice and training, which includes the Scientific Outreach Grants and the Introduction to Public Engagement and Science Policy online course.The winning entries in the foundation/undergraduate category covered biomolecular topics as wide as painkillers and the answer to the age-old question ‘How much coffee is too much?’ Resorting to an impressive array of creative techniques, from digital to stop-motion animation, these videos showcased clear and engaging science with remarkable media mastery.The first prize in the foundation/undergraduate category went to Faye Singleton, a third-year undergraduate studying biomedical sciences at the University of York. On receiving the prize, Faye commented: “I've been making YouTube videos since I was 10 years old and have built my audience to 25,000 subscribers. I now focus my videos on all aspects of student life. I wanted to create a topic on something that could be useful to the general public. After some research I found a news article surrounding the adverse effects of Paracetamol. I felt the mechanism to how the drug works as well as the potential dangers of it, were not so commonly known within the general public. This was my gap! I decided to illustrate the complexity of this painkiller into an easy-to-understand narrative, hoping to inform my audience. I was over the moon to find I had received first place in this competition. I'm hoping to pursue a career in medical science communications and hopefully this is just the beginning!”The postgraduate category comprised another inspiring set of prize-winning videos. The first prize went to Madeleine Ball, a PhD student at the Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience at the University of Cambridge. On her prize-winning entry, Madeleine said: “I decided to make my video about the Sonic Hedgehog gene because I had heard about it before even going to university – it made me smile and realise that science wasn’t just about very serious academic pursuits, but that there was light-heartedness and a human-side behind scientific work also.”Madeleine also added: “I love science, and getting the chance to communicate what I’m so passionate about is something that I’ve always wanted to do – this competition was the first time I ever made any video, or piece of science communication aimed at the public and I’m thrilled it went so well! Winning this prize has motivated me to continue making science videos, and has reminded me that no matter where my scientific career may take me, I can embrace the human side of research and keep having fun with it.”The six winning entries can be viewed on the Science Communication Prize webpage hosted on Biochemical Society website.

The strength of science communication in Australia has until now been in practice rather than theory, driven by a demand for practical solutions to problems. Science communicators are resourceful in devising solutions, either adapting international experience to suit local circumstances or inventing their own. The theoretical study of science communication in Australia has been slower to develop. Only recently has Australia recognized that many science-based issues require a more considered approach, in which practical actions are governed by a deeper theoretical understanding. Prior to 1990, the limited number of university departments researching science communication-related issues worked principally from a social sciences perspective. Based in units with names such as ‘History and Philosophy of Science’, they had little to do with practitioners in science communication. The practitioners usually worked for research organizations, science centers and museums, and came from a wide variety of disciplinary backgrounds. They performed a range of tasks and the titles of their positions varied widely. There were no established training programs, and the role of ‘science communicator’ was only beginning to be defined. Dialog between theoreticians and practitioners was virtually non-existent. Since the 1990s, the practice of science communication has become more professional through the development of Australian Science Communicators, the consolidation of three centers for training science communicators, and an increase in academic research into science communication. Academic research into science communication currently takes a mostly multidisciplinary approach and has moved away from a deficit model focus to one that is more participatory. This may at least partly explain the closer links emerging between researchers and practitioners.

Race and the Estimation of GFR: Getting It Right

County-level integrated media center is an important part of China's new media layout, playing the role of the "last mile" of information transmission and serving as important tools and channels for grassroots media science communication. In order to further enhance science and technology communication capability of county-level integrated media centers, the paper selected the representative Haidian district integrated media center as the research object and analyzed its science and technology communication strategy by case study. Research showed that Haidian district integrated media center could innovate its working mechanism and established a "1+N" organizational system, fully utilized regional characteristics to build core competitiveness in content and a three-dimensional science and technology communication network based on changes in the media ecosystem, also paid attention to audience needs to achieve new communication of "customized menu style". The communication strategies provides certain insights and references for the development of science and technology communication work in current county-level integrated media centers. For instance, county-level integrated media centers can promote systematic reforms, tap into resources, and improve the grassroots science popularization service system; break through thinking limitations, expand the content dimensions of science and technology communication; establish a multi-dimensional and three-dimensional science and technology communication matrix by paralleling their own platforms with commercial platforms; and focus on user thinking, user needs and user experiences.

Science communication is an important part of science literacy that helps build trust in science, promotes the public interest, and supports informed decision-making on scientific issues. However, the literature lacks studies examining undergraduate student’s competence, interest, and self-efficacy in science communication. This study investigated undergraduate student’s competence, interest, and perceived self-efficacy skills in science communication. Two instruments were used to collect data from 226 undergraduate students in a public research university. The findings revealed that participants’ competence and interest in science communication were moderate. The data shows that STEM students lack confidence in their ability to engage in science communication and are not particularly interested in it. The study found no significant differences in competence, interest, perceived self-efficacy, and gender. Likewise, no significant differences were found in competence and perceived self-efficacy across different grade levels. However, there was a significant relationship between participants’ interests and their grade levels. The effect size was small for competence and interests in science communication. The conclusion discusses the implications of the findings for future studies.

The mental models that individual scholars have of science communication – how it works, what it is supposed to achieve and so on – shape the way these academics actually communicate to the public. But these mental models, and their prevalence among scholars, have rarely been analysed. Drawing on a large-scale, representative web survey of academics at universities in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (n = 15,778) from 2020, we identify three mental models that are prevalent among scholars, and that correspond to conceptual models found in science communication theory: ‘Public Understanding of Science’, ‘Public Engagement with Science’ and ‘Strategic Science Communication’. The results suggest that the ‘Strategic Science Communication’ model is particularly prevalent among academics in precarious employment and female scholars. Extrinsically motivated academics, that is, those under pressure to win grants, also seem to use science communication more strategically. The ‘Public Engagement’ model is prevalent among older and female scholars, while ‘Public Understanding’ is particularly prevalent among scholars who find their work especially meaningful. Findings also reveal that academics’ mental models largely align with the way they practice science communication.

There has been little, if any, research looking at how well practical science communicators are connected with the relevant research literature. Indeed, there is little—if anything—written about who makes up the science communication community. This chapter reports on a short survey of attendees at the British Association for the Advancement of Science’s 2007 Science Communication conference. The survey gives some indication of what science communicators have by way of training, and what they are reading that is relevant to their professional lives. It finds that the community is relatively young and predominantly female, with generally high levels of science education. Training in science communication is less prevalent, however, and over 40% of the conference delegates who responded did not read any of the relevant journals in the field. This chapter discusses whether there may be mutual misunderstanding between science communication practitioners and social scientists who carry out research in the area. It puts forward an example of the use of research on public perceptions of risk in science communication training.

To document the outcomes of a dedicated Science Communication Community of Practice (CoP) for increasing prevention-focused knowledge translation (KT) and evidence uptake. Type of program: Shared priorities and a united vision to communicate the value of prevention research led to the formation of a dedicated Science Communication CoP within an Australian public health prevention-focused research collaboration. Members of the CoP included science communication experts and early- and mid-career researchers (EMCRs) with KT-focused roles. The CoP met monthly, with semi-structured meetings led by an experienced science communication professional. A priority of the CoP was to develop resources that could help members and external parties to communicate their findings, especially EMCRs and those working on low-resourced projects. Insights from CoP members were synthesised to document if, and how, the CoP increased communication and KT capacity. CoP members found that participatory dialogue - dialogue that involves sharing perspectives and listening to others in order to develop a shared understanding - helped promote a greater understanding of science communication techniques and led to KT being embedded within projects. The CoP itself resulted in shared narratives and communication outputs that could not have been produced by individual members, primarily due to a lack of dedicated resourcing. Members found that engaging in the CoP increased their use of a range of science communication skills, tactics, and methods (e.g., targeted messaging for policy and practice, use of media and social media, and event management to engage audiences and build trust). The CoP helped build a greater working knowledge of science communication among its members, leading to increased KT activities. Within an environment of low resourcing for science communication, bringing researchers together with science communication experts can help promote the communication of synthesised evidence and unified messaging on 'what works for prevention'.

Science communication and science education aim to expose citizens to scientific knowledge, which is increasingly becoming a prerequisite for effective participation in modern society. We aim to present a review of science communication and science education literature, for highlighting the need for and importance of narrowing the gap between the two communities. Our objective was to find what themes, if any, are common to the two disciplines, based on keyword searches of the literature, that represent overlap constructs between the two communities. We searched for academic articles published from 2000 to 2017 in three science communication journals and three science education journals, which contained the keywords science communication , science engagement and science understanding . A three‐stage literature review yielded 70 papers that provided the basis for common theme identification: (i) attitudes towards the importance of science communication, (ii) communication channel types and (iii) scientific knowledge construction. Findings reveal similarities and disparities between the two communities and the stakeholders they investigated. Both communities agree on the meaning of process and product science communication constructs. Yet, while the science education community mainly relates to the product construct, the science communication community mainly relays to the communication construct. We then discuss the value of fostering dialogue between the two communities. Our research contributes to raising the awareness of the value of maintaining ongoing dialogue between science communication and science education communities, accounting for the three common themes we have identified, implying that a common language is emerging, and the variety of stakeholders involved.