Editorial: Geoscience communication-planning to make it publishable

John K. Hillier, Katharine E. Welsh, Mathew Stiller-Reeve, Rebecca K. Priestley, Heidi A. Roop, Tiziana Lanza, Sam Illingworth

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

If you are a geoscientist doing work to achieve impact outside academia or engaging different audiences with the geosciences, are you planning to make this publishable? If so, then plan. Such investigations into how people (academics, practitioners, other publics) respond to geoscience can use pragmatic, simple research methodologies accessible to the non-specialist or be more complex. To employ a medical analogy, first aid is useful and the best option in some scenarios, but calling a medic (i.e. a collaborator with experience of geoscience communication or relevant research methods) provides the contextual knowledge to identify a condition and opens up a diverse, more powerful range of treatment options. Here, we expand upon the brief advice in the first editorial of Geoscience Communication (Illingworth et al., 2018), illustrating what constitutes robust and publishable work in this context, elucidating its key elements. Our aim is to help geoscience communicators plan a route to publication and to illustrate how good engagement work that is already being done might be developed into publishable research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)493-506
Number of pages14
JournalGeoscience Communication
Volume4
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 27 2021

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 John K. Hillier et al.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Editorial: Geoscience communication-planning to make it publishable'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this