TY - JOUR
T1 - Editorial
T2 - Geoscience communication-planning to make it publishable
AU - Hillier, John K.
AU - Welsh, Katharine E.
AU - Stiller-Reeve, Mathew
AU - Priestley, Rebecca K.
AU - Roop, Heidi A.
AU - Lanza, Tiziana
AU - Illingworth, Sam
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 John K. Hillier et al.
PY - 2021/10/27
Y1 - 2021/10/27
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85118667115&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85118667115&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.5194/gc-4-493-2021
DO - 10.5194/gc-4-493-2021
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85118667115
SN - 2569-7102
VL - 4
SP - 493
EP - 506
JO - Geoscience Communication
JF - Geoscience Communication
IS - 4
ER -