Thank you for the opportunity to read your work “The shadowlands of science communication in academia — definitions, problems, and possible solutions.” Working in the science communication space, I agree that the “shadowlands” is a great way to represent the elements of the field that are so central to our work and yet so ambiguous or unclear for those trying to navigate research and meaning in science communication. I think that this piece will shed light on the unwritten and often muddy spaces that dictate a lot of our work, but are often not explicitly taught, accounted for, or made clear. Thinking through shadowland spaces will be helpful for both current and future science communicators, in geoscience, but also more broadly.

I appreciated the introductory material that offers a brief history of where science communication has been and where it is going next. Something that I found myself wondering about was the connection between the science communication definitions offered, the specific Geoscience Communication definitional spectrum, and the taxonomy that followed. I thought that outlining the elements of geoscience areas was helpful, but thought there could be a bit more clarity situating this very specific definitional framework against the larger definitions of science communication, particularly since the section that follows offers another set of categorizations. I wasn’t always sure how to connect the three different definitional frameworks. Once the shadowlands section began, I was more clear on the trajectory.

Figure 1 offered a really clear overview of the project and goals of the piece in terms of framing science communication. One question I had for further consideration is: what are the distinctions between training science communicators and viewing science communication as a valued professional activity? There seems to be overlap in these two solutions, but perhaps an example or a bit more detail could differentiate the two.

I really appreciated the discussion about responsible use of uncertainties on page 9, and wondered if it might be worth mentioning that public audiences are also equipped to handle uncertainties as decision-makers are (unless decision-makers in this case was meant to represent both public and expert audiences). Overall, I thought the discussion about unidirectional risk communication was really timely and important.

In terms of the first recommendation regarding Clarity and transparency, I think the term clarity could be explored in a bit further detail. Clarity can mean a lot of different things depending on context, which might be worth discussing. I do think, though, that the focus on audience in this section is key and does a great job of highlighting that cultural and social backgrounds impact audience interpretation and interaction with the information.

The authors did a great job of discussing specific organizations that could modify their practices with regards to science communication to offer a way forward, and the level of detail constitutes a great first step towards these ends. If anything, some information about first steps that readers could take towards implementing or advocating for these goals could make these goals more actionable for those in the field who may not be in direct positions of power to influence these decisions. Overall, though, I thought these ideas were great, and geoscience communicators can really benefit from considering these alternative ways of valuing and incentivizing science communication in our diversity of roles.

Other considerations:

• In line 211, “some scientific discipline” should read “scientific disciplines”
• In line 272, should “action” be “actions” based on the multiple recommendations (drop, cover, hold on)?
• There appear to be a few extra spaces in line 392

Gani et al present a thoughtful, well researched and compelling editorial on what they term the 'shadowlands' of science communication. They clearly present the value of science communication and identify the issues pushing this into the shadowlands. They then offer some interesting perspectives and clear recommendations. This is a valuable piece and I enjoyed reading it very much and am delighted to be in a position to offer some comments.

My main and central comment is on the use of language and the distinction between 'science' (implying the entire arc of all things scientific) and 'geoscience' (more focused on the earth and earth processes). The use of both terms and both meanings belongs in this piece but there are many times where narrowing the discussion and scope to 'geosciences' I believe is appropriate. This is a Geoscience journal, from a geoscience society, written by a group of geoscientists, for an audience predominantly of geoscientists! I don't wish to labour this point, but I think the addition of 'geo' to many of the instances in which 'science' is mentioned will focus and strengthen the arguments and piece in general. There are generic points about science communication but the examples and recommendations, especially related to hazards, are more geoscience. My recommendation is that the authors critically assess almost every mention of 'science' and see if replacing this with 'geoscience' would work better. For example section 3.3 could be 'Geoscience communication as a professional activity'.

I am not sure if section 1.2 is necessary - it's a nice literature review but in my view does not add much to the paper and could either be condensed into the introduction or left out. This will also make the piece shorter and more focused. 

In section 2, the term 'shadowlands' is discussed in more detail. My sense is these authors are introducing this term for the first time? If yes, maybe add some text saying 'in our opinion' or 'from our perspective'. This is such a useful phrase and way of looking at improving geoscience communication, I think the authors should take credit for it! Figure 1 is really clear and useful.

In section 2.3.1, I wonder if the authors would like to be even clearer and call out the Whiteness of geoscience - rather than just say how low the percentage of minoritized groups. There are two articles which clearly articulate the Whiteness of geosciences: Dutt, 2020, Nature Geoscience and Berhe et al., 2022, Nature Geoscience. From my perspective, this section can be strengthened by being clearer - geosciences does not just have a low percentage of everyone else, our field is predominantly White and this Whiteness carries a lot of privilege.

Following on from this point, in the next paragraph, there is a very well written argument about the 'invisible labour' done mainly by women. Again, I wonder if this section can be even more specific, rather than just saying this labour is done mainly by women, say that male privilege shields many geoscientists from feeling pressured or obliged to undertake this labour. Then intersect this with race, and we have White male privilege vs minoritized women burdened with additional and invisible labour. A recommendation out of making this discussion more explicit could be that better geoscience communication needs to be more representative, which in this case requires broader participation. 

In summary, this is a thoughtful, well written, timely piece which will generate further discussion, as well as recording where we are right now in understanding and bettering geoscience communication. I look forward to seeing the final version published.