Welcome to the journal of
As executive editors we are responsible for helping to ensure the credibility of the journal, and for providing assistance to editors, reviewers, and authors during the peer review process. The most important thing that we need to stress here is that we are all human beings, and that if you have any questions please just reach out to us by using the email address gc-executive-editors@mailinglists.copernicus.org, which gets sent to all of us. One of us will try to get back to you within 48 h, and we are always happy to hear any suggestions or improvements that you might have for the journal.
But who are we? Sam is a Senior Lecturer in Science Communication at Manchester Metropolitan University in the UK, where his research involves the development of dialogue between scientists and non-scientists, facilitating this through the use of poetry and games. Kirsten is an Associate Professor in Geography with an interest in the self-organisation that occurs in natural systems, and the challenges that we face in communicating risk. Iain is Professor of Geoscience Communication at the University of Plymouth and works with media production companies making popular science television documentaries. Jon is a palaeontologist and “rogue researcher”, currently working on a range of projects related to either dinosaurs or scholarly communication, including primary research, publishing consultancy, and the development of an Open Science Massive Open Online Course (MOOC).
This journal follows on from several years of market research, feasibility
studies, and discussions within and across the global geoscience community.
Following several of these discussions, particularly at the European
Geoscience Union (EGU) 2015 General Assembly, a special issue in the
At this point it is worth giving a definition of what we mean by the term
“geoscience communication” since it is a relatively new field. Against a
backdrop of growing geo-environmental concerns, a critical challenge for
scientists is how best to communicate to the wider public sphere a complex
body of knowledge. Many scientists would question our current ability to meet
this challenge, highlighting the apparent inadequate uptake of their expert
knowledge among policy makers and other stakeholders to inform wise
environmental-decision making (Kirchhoff et al., 2013). To address this,
geoscientists are being encouraged to more effectively convey their technical
expertise to non-technical audiences. The result is an increasing prominence
of more effective communication within higher education and research
organisations, as manifest in the rise of training courses for early-career
scientists. The assumption underpinning much of this is that if technical
information could be communicated “better”, people would make choices more
consistent with the science. Yet, over the last decade or so, this
long-enduring and widely held view – that a deficiency of information and
technical understanding lies at the root of why people do not accept
scientific claims or change their behaviour in line with scientific guidance
– has been called into question (see e.g. Burns et al., 2003; Bubela et al.,
2009). As a recent state-of-the-art review of effective science communication
highlights (National Academies of Sciences and Medicine, 2017,
p. 3), The research on science communication, however, shows that audiences may
already understand what scientists know but, for diverse reasons, do not
agree or act consistently with that science. People rarely make decisions
based only on scientific information: they typically also take into account
their own goals and needs, knowledge and skills, and values and beliefs.
The resulting landscape of science communication is becoming ever more broad and diverse as research organisations and funding agencies encourage scientists to engage the public ever more imaginatively in their work, address their collective concerns, and even have them participate in the scientific process themselves. Scientists are expected to converse with diverse audiences – for example, science users and decision makers, the wider scientific community, public organisations, and individual citizens – in ways tailored for each audience. Much geoscience communication still rests on traditional journalistic norms of effective communication (Stewart and Nield, 2013), framing (Nisbet, 2009), story-telling (Dahlstrom, 2014), language (Somerville, 2011), and visualisation (Wang et al., 2018), but fresh ways to connect with mass popular culture through emergent digital communication channels open up exciting possibilities (Schäfer, 2012).
Geoscience communications are thus scientific activities at multiple levels
that aim at increasing attention to and public discussion of geoscientific
results. Thereby they cover a wide
variety of initiatives, from science fairs and geotourism (see e.g. Hose,
2006) to policy briefings and science comedy. For example, we as scientists
might communicate our own scientific achievements on personal or
institutional websites, or the latest insights to public partners in
transdisciplinary projects, or on the broadest level to news agencies about
knowledge and results of high importance to mankind as such, like the spread
of diseases or global warming. Some would also consider traditional
geoscience journals a form of geoscientific communication, and it is our aim
to embrace as much of this diversity as possible. The multifaceted nature of
the wider field of science communication itself is illustrated by the many
terms that are used in the field, such as widening participation, knowledge
exchange or transfer, outreach, public engagement, and public benefit – all
of which, including also science education, we gather here under the umbrella
term of science communication (Illingworth et al., 2015). Furthermore, the
geosciences cover a broad range of disciplines which, like science
communication too, often depend on the research funding body, research
institute, geoscientist, or cycle of the moon. Given that
To summarise, geoscience communication has now become – to different extents
– one of the everyday duties of many geoscientists. This effort for
increased and (hopefully) more successful geoscience communication is
especially important since nowadays science seems to be under increased
public scrutiny or is even openly distrusted. Or, as Dyer (2018) has put it: Science is increasingly facing problems with its ability to communicate ideas
publicly, a problem that politicians […] are able to circumvent with
moves towards populism.
The core purpose of To provide wider and more formal recognition for existing and future
geoscience communication initiatives. A lot of great science communication
work is usually performed on a voluntary basis and with little formal
academic reward or recognition, so giving people the opportunity to publish
their experiences and work in this area in venues that are traditionally
recognised is one way to help address this problem. With the advent of
Science 2.0 (an approach to science for which information-sharing and
collaboration are made possible by social network technologies, and in which
effective science communication plays a vital role), this is particularly
important (see e.g. Peters et al., 2014). In providing a platform for these initiatives,
While other science communication and public engagement journals do exist,
they are often directly geared towards a social science or media studies
audience, and as such many physical scientists might feel unqualified or
unmotivated to publish in them (Illingworth and Prokop, 2017). However, these
journals provide excellent examples of the type of research that
As stated above, the journal intends to embrace as much of the diversity of
geoscience communication as possible, giving a forum for scientifically
rigorous communication strategies in five key subject areas. As an author,
you will have to choose one of these
keywords so that your manuscript is assigned to an Associate Editor with
expertise in one of these fields.
Geoscience education Geoscience education is pedagogical and andragogical research, which takes
place in either a formal or informal environment. Articles can be theoretical
or practical in nature. For example, manuscripts on innovative geoscience
curricula development, programmes of advanced training of teachers in the
geosciences, theories of geoscience instruction and learning, and reviews of
the latest trends in geoscience education can be assigned to this subject
area. Furthermore, social, political, and epistemological learning and
teaching contexts can be addressed here. Geoscience engagement In this subject area falls any research which considers engaging the general
public. In the broadest sense it thus encompasses all strategies that deal
with the interaction of geoscientists with non-geoscientists, or the general
public utilising blogs, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc., as well as offline
venues including school visits and public festivals and talks. Of special
interest might be studies that address the relationship between geoscientific
knowledge and power, and the role of social media for this relationship. Geoscience policy Geoscience policy asks how, which, and why geoscientific endeavours are
funded, and how geosciences are politically (as well as economically and
socially) promoted and which networks are in play – the interplay between
geoscience for policy and policy for geoscience. Manuscripts that analyse
supporting and hindering factors for successful geoscience policies, or
articles focusing on improving and developing conceptual or empirical models
of knowledge production and dissemination, are examples for this subject
area. History and philosophy of geosciences Articles assigned to this subject area ask, for example, for the former and
current foundations of geosciences, and which methods are and have been used,
or discuss the implications of geoscientific results. They also might seek
answers to the question of what qualifies as geoscientific theory and
research for which reasons. Open geoscience How can geoscience be made more easily accessible for the wider public, and
how can public awareness of, and engagement with, geoscientific results be
increased? These questions are at the core of studies in the field of open
geoscience. Instead of understanding it rather strictly as diverse
open-access strategies that rather focus on successful dissemination of
geoscientific results,
High ethical standards at
Copernicus Publications has several existing policies that help us to meet
these high ethical standards. These guidelines can be viewed in the general
terms, the general obligations for authors, the general obligations for
editors, our publication policy, and the general obligations for referees
(all of which are available on the
We strongly recommend that submitting authors deposit any data that
correspond to journal articles in reliable data repositories, assign digital
object identifiers, and properly cite any data sets as individual
contributions, in accordance with our data policy. Furthermore, we encourage
authors to share their research as early as they possibly can in preprint
servers such as EarthArXiv, to help maximise the dissemination of their work.
All articles published by
The Editorial Board is fully aware of the numerous ongoing transformations happening in the world of scholarly publishing. It is our priority to remain aware of these, and make sure that the journal is continuously acting in the best interests of the authors and the wider geoscience community, while upholding the strongest ethical and scientific standards possible.
In order to help you in your research design, evaluation, and manuscript
preparation we have put together a list for prospective authors. This list is
not exhaustive, but it should act as a useful checklist when preparing your
manuscript for submission to All research articles should include qualitative and/or quantitative
evidence, and not solely anecdotal reporting. For example, a research paper
that aims to report on the effectiveness of a public engagement initiative
that communicates volcano risks through the use of mime should have
qualitative or quantitative evidence that supports the effectiveness of the
initiative and demonstrates how impact has been achieved. A recent
publication that utilised such an approach was Gravina et al. (2017), who
investigated how social media can be used to communicate important natural
hazard information, and which included a thorough quantitative analysis of
the reach and impact of a variety of social media channels. All research articles should include an explicitly marked section that
considers the ethics of the investigation and should also demonstrate how the
research has received ethical clearance from their research institute or
professional body. If this is not possible, then a clear rationale should be
given for any extenuating circumstances, ideally in the cover letter to the
editor upon submission of the manuscript. Furthermore, if institutional
ethical approval is not possible (e.g. if you are an independent researcher),
then the ethical guidelines for a country or governing body should be adhered
to: for example, the British Educational Research Association (BERA) provides
ethical guidelines for educational research (see e.g. Flewitt, 2005). Any research articles that involve an interdisciplinary approach should
demonstrate how they have integrated the practitioners from the different
disciplines (e.g. artists, poets, social scientists) at the very start of the
process, and not just tacked them on at the end as a ribbon. A recent
publication that serves as an exemplar for such integrated collaboration is
Stiller-Reeve and Naznin (2017), who worked with local communities in
Bangladesh, using art to design citizen science projects in close dialogue
with the project's climate scientists and artists. We encourage authors to make use of online supplements to share materials
(e.g. survey items, slide decks, videos, summaries for policymakers, or any
other supporting information). If supplements are not included and the
manuscript includes links to materials archived online, then only URLs with
stable long-term storage should be used. Kirchner et al. (2018) provide a
great example of how this can be done effectively, as in addition to
reporting on the development of an ice-sheet model for use in introductory
Earth science courses, they also provide detailed guidelines for how to adapt
and deliver the discussed learning activities in a classroom environment. Any limitations of the study, including sources of bias, should be clearly
discussed. These might include limitations for when, where, and with whom the
innovation is likely to work, or limitations of the instruments or metrics
used in the evaluation. A recent publication that demonstrated how a
discussion of limitations is extremely useful for future researchers is Arnal
et al. (2016), which describes in great detail the limitations of their
risk-based decision-making game for flood forecasting, and makes clear how
future researchers can build on what they have achieved. We feel that
including such self-reflection is part of good scientific practice, and
therefore strongly encourage it. Footnotes should be avoided, as they tend to disrupt the flow of the text.
If absolutely necessary, they should be numbered consecutively. Footnotes to
tables should be marked by lowercase letters. Similarly, hyperlinks to URLs
should also be avoided if a secondary source such as a journal article or
report can instead be referenced. If URLs are used, then the reference should
always include an access date. We are committed to the inclusion and contributions from academics,
practitioners, and community partners regardless of demographic,
ethnographic, or psychographic background (e.g. race, age, culture, ability,
ethnicity or nationality, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation,
marital status, religious affiliation, and socioeconomic status). We affirm
the worth and dignity of every member of the research community and strongly
believe that the affirmation of this diversity is of both intrinsic and
instrumental value. Moreover, we ascertain that making visible diverse
contributions leads to richer debates and knowledge in the area of research
and beyond. The Equality Act (2010) provides a legal framework to protect the
rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all.
We expect all of our authors to fully engage with the peer review process,
and not just to treat it as a box-ticking exercise. We recognise that there
are many things that people find perplexing about many aspects of peer
review, but these are mainly centred around recognition. At present, we feel
it still provides the optimal way to validate and ensure scientific
integrity. We expect that the majority of the publications in
We hope that the above list serves as a useful aide or memoire for when you
are designing your geoscience communication initiatives, evaluating your
findings, and preparing your manuscripts. We hope that this also inspires you
to discover new methods of communicating geoscientific research, or, for
geoscientists, at least think about wider issues and the importance of
scientific communication. However, we would like to remind you that all of
the editorial team are human beings, and that we are very happy to provide
any help or assistance that you might have during any stage of your research
or submission. Our inboxes are always open, and it is
far better to ask for answers to any niggling questions that you may have
before you submit your manuscript (or even better, when you are planning your
initiative or research project), than halfway through the revision process.
We hope that this editorial has served as a useful introduction to the scope
and need for
Likewise, if you would like to be an Associate Editor or a reviewer for the journal and think that you have the skills to do so, please get in touch. Even if you do not have the skills now but want to find out about how to get them, then please get in touch. As the title of this editorial puts it, for us peer review and publication are all about building bridges not walls, and it is only by working together in a collaborative and supportive manner that we can better hope to create research that is diverse, important, and beneficial to the whole of society.
No primary data sets were used in producing this article.
SI, IS, JT, and KvE all designed and co-wrote the paper in equal amounts.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
We would like to thank everyone at Copernicus Publications and the European
Geosciences Union for their help in the development of