This manuscript presents original research about how science communication models are used in geoscience communication in British Columbia, finding that the deficit model is still dominant and dialogue and participatory approaches are underused, highlighting a gap between theory and practice.

General comments:

The title accurately describes the paper's content and the abstract provides a clear and complete summary. The goals, study design and results are communicated with clarity, with all sections well-structured to effectively convey the research findings and facilitate understanding of the study's significance. The methodologies are well-detailed and limitations are transparently acknowledged, providing a clear understanding of the research's scope and findings. Related and referenced works are properly acknowledged and the reference list reflects an extensive literature review.

The paper addresses an important scientific question under the scope of GC, offering a valuable, comprehensive and current review of the topic. As underlined in the manuscript, there are few studies in this area, making this work a much-needed contribution to advancing the field of geoscience communication. Deficit model thinking, which has received considerable attention in science communication research, needs also to be addressed within the context of geoscience.

Although the work has a regional focus, considering trends studied in other scientific fields, I believe that the findings are likely consistent with broader patterns and therefore, the insights from this paper will contribute to global improvements.

Specific comments:

- In the abstract, it is noted that geoscience communication, though rich in practical perspectives, lacks theoretical grounding; it might be beneficial to reinforce this context by including some few more relevant references in the literature review.

- Considering the journal's audience, it may be pertinent to include a few specific examples illustrating each of the three theoretical models of geoscience communication in section 2.2 Science Communication. In the supplemental material, the objectives and activities within the models are thoroughly explained, however, I would suggest incorporating just a few examples directly into the main text for better context.

- In line 84, it is noted that there is often an oversimplification of the diverse and intricate nature of audiences. It is unfortunate that the ‘general public’ could not be segmented further. Is it possible to provide any insight into who is included in the ‘general public’? Were there no activities identified for local communities or media/journalists,

It is indeed a pity that geo-art was excluded from the analysis, but this decision is totally understandable due to the limited available information on the objectives.

- I am not sure if the concept of ‘programs for science learning’ implicitly emphasizes knowledge rather than engagement.

- Regarding the methodology of content analysis (3.2), the description is thorough, reflecting the complexity of the process and demonstrating robustness. The challenges of coding appear to have been significant. In fact, understanding a strategy that looks dialogical at first glance but ultimately turns out to be one-directional in practice must have been quite complex. In that sense, I believe the methodology section thoroughly addresses reliability, which is fundamental for ensuring the validity of the findings and the overall transparency of the research. However, I would consider streamlining that section to facilitate readability and make it easier for the reader to follow without compromising the depth of information.

- Does this more than twofold discrepancy between participatory objectives (13%) and activities (5%) call for specific further reflection?

- Can some concrete future steps be suggested to address this deficit model prevalence?

- I am not sure if the term ‘K-12’, is widely recognized by readers globally. Although it is explained in detail in the supplemental material, I recommend providing a small definition in the main text.

- I would also suggest clarifying the term ‘sciart’, referring to the intersection of science and art, as it may not be familiar to all readers.

- Please note that the official designation is ‘UNESCO Global Geopark’ (UGGp), but the text inconsistently refers to it as ‘GeoPark’ or ‘UNESCO Geopark’.

- Regarding venues, it is not totally clear if Tumbler Ridge UGGp in British Columbia was considered in the assessment?

Conclusion:

Overall, this manuscript is very interesting and well written, offering an important insight into geoscience communication research and contributing to the advancement of the field. The methodology is robust and clearly presented, with results that strongly support the conclusions.

The theoretical studies in this area are notably scarce, making this contribution very valuable. This work presents results supported by concrete data that are essential for developing practical approaches to contribute to address challenges in geoscience communication.

Thanks to the authors for submitting this interesting study.

General comments:

Overall quality: the current study is well-structured, and presents novel data in a clear and interesting fashion, filling an existing research gap in the field. The prominent use of the scicomm theoretical framework as an analysis tool is carried out thoroughly and following a clear background as to why this is appropriate.

Integration of scicomm theory in GC studies. 

• Relevance of scientific questions within the scope of Geoscience Communication (GC): scientific question is relevant to field. 
• Presentation of novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data: concepts and tools are well-established, data is novel. 
• Validity and clarity of scientific methods and assumptions: Clear and valid. 
• Sufficiency of results to support the interpretations and conclusions: sufficient. 
• Proper credit given to related work and and clear indication of their own new/original contribution: YES
• Title clearly reflect the contents of the paper: YES
• Abstract provides a concise and complete summary: YES
• Structure and clarity of overall presentation: Well-structured and clear
• Fluency and precision of language: Fluent and precise
• Appropriate number and quality of references: YES

Additional comments:

1. A general comment on the literature review: I would suggest shortening the chapter on scicomm and including a third chapter of the lit. review outlining commonalities between GC and scicomm. Although the parallel fields of GC and scicomm are presented clearly, the review could provide a stronger basis supporting your claim that integration of these fields is pertinent.  Perhaps in continuation to the relationship between scicomm models and objectives (as per Metcalfe) that you have provided, you could also highlight overlaps with GC objectives, thus providing a basis for the claim that the scicomm models are relevant to GC. Another option could be to include GC studies that integrated scicomm models (if these exist).
2. A general comment regarding research questions: the research question is currently “hidden” within chapter 3.2 content analysis. Consider including the research question in a more prominent and perhaps earlier section of the paper (perhaps in the first paragraph of the Methods chapter). 
3. General comment on the discussion: please make sure that the reader is clear on which conclusions are an outcome of this study including phrases such as “we found” or “in this study we discovered”. Please compare your own findings with those of other studies, in the field of GC if available, and if not in other fields. Below I have provided some examples of where this should be included, but there are additional instances. 
4. Discussion: perhaps there should be three subsections here? (1) The prevalence of the deficit model in GC communication in B.C. (2) Why the deficit model persists (3) Going past the deficit model. I think that this last subsection is of interest and could be developed further. 

Specific comments

1. Lines 26-27 - there is mention of absence of “robust theoretical frameworks in the geoscience communication literature”. I am not sure whether you are referring to tailored GC frameworks, or the integration of existing science communication theory into GC studies, as demonstrated in the current study. If the former, I suggest including a succinct explanation on the unique qualities of GC that warrant a tailored framework. See for example: https://oxfordre.com/communication/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-311?p=emailAopIlgda1dpUk&d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-311 where there is clarity on what makes explanation-as-teaching unique to other forms of risk messaging. If the latter, possibly rephrase. Additionally, consider adding more recent citations to strengthen the assertion that there are no robust theoretical frameworks in GC literature to date (last citation is dated 2017). 
2. In the abstract it is stated that: “The study highlights disparities in the use of communication models across target audiences, regions, and venues”. However in lines 45-46, the audiences are not referenced: “Additionally, the geographic locations and venues where geoscience communication occurs will be examined to assess the prevalence of the various models”. I suggest rephrasing for clarity as well as mentioning the examination of target audiences as well. 
3. 2.1 GC - I think that it would be a good idea to begin with some discussion on aims and the potential of reaching them. Although beginning with two aims (raising awareness & stimulating discourse), the chapter continues with two additional aims (addressing society’s most pressing challenges and enhancing geo-literacy). I am unclear as to issues such as: (1) which of these aims are being reached and which are not; (2) whether GC goals and practice are aligned?; (3) What the central “practitioners' real-world challenges” mentioned in the introduction are? Possibly by addressing these issues & including research gaps, this chapter could be a basis for the stated need to analyze whether GC has transitioned from deficit to dialogue approaches. At the moment it is unclear to me why this analysis is pertinent. 
4. Lines 131-134: Above it is claimed that information retrieval was systematic. Therefore, perhaps clarify the combinations between keywords used. Minimum of two keyword combinations? Three? Were all possible combinations between the keywords entered? How did you choose the order of keywords for your search? Additionally, since the timeline for the search is relatively long, perhaps clarify whether the searches were carried out multiple times during the time-period or was each combination entered once? Did you look at all the results received from each Google search? 
5. Database - was this provided in the supplementary materials? If not, please consider including it together with a reference to the DB within the text, or at least the subset analysed in the current study. 
6. Table 2: please explain the “prevalence” column. Unclear what is shown in this column. In addition, please provide reference for “marginals” in this table. Are these ratings that were neither clearly present nor absent?
7. Line 337: I think for clarity it would be helpful to begin with “The full sample encompasses a total of X objectives and Y activities” and then continue with the breakdown: “including the following: A. agreements between coders 1 and 2 (596 for objectives, 6137 for activities…” etc.
8. Throughout the results: please include numbers together with the percentages (as shown in the figures).  E.g.: “an overwhelming 76% (n=118) were deficit…”
9. Line 343 (Results): The number 155 appearing in “Out of the 155 geoscience communication objectives” seems to appear quite suddenly for the reader. I am not sure what this number represents. Is this the total number of objectives that were coded? Or are these objective categories that were created following coding? The same goes for the number 363 (activities) which has simply appeared here. I suggest detailing the total number of objectives and activities found and coded, followed by the total objective categories and activity categories (if these exist). This information could appear in the methodology or results.
10. Lines 351-354: first, I would recommend a subtitle here (e.g. models by audience and medium). Second, there is no reference to fig 3a within the results. I think it should be appearing somewhere in these lines as there is data here that does not reference a figure/ table but seems to be represented in fig 3a. 
11. Fig 3: First, please clarify what the numbers within the bars (3a & 3b) are. If they are percentages, note that they are different from the numbers appearing within the text. Second, note that you have referenced use of colors which will need to be rephrased since colors will not appear in the final manuscript (as per editor comment).
12. Another issue I am not entirely clear about is the analysis of models. It appears that sometimes you have analyzed both activities and objectives, sometimes only activities, for example in the case of resources for example,as the title “Model Activities in Resources” suggests. Why have the objectives not been included in the analysis in the case of resources? I am unclear for the reason for this discrepancy (perhaps you explained it in the methodology but I could not find an explanation), please clarify it in the results chapter. 
13. Fig 4: titles for y axis are missing. 
14. Line 421: clarification that B.C. refers to British Canada could be important for non-Canadians reading this paper. 
15. Lines 459-463: I have discussed the following statement: “The data shows a misalignment between practitioners’ stated objectives and the activities they design to achieve them. Deficit and participatory objectives do not consistently translate into deficit and participatory activities” as well as the example you have used to depict misalignment, with a scicomm expert with a strong background in education. I would suggest consulting with additional experts in education/ scicomm, as this statement may diverge from scicomm and education theory. The statement and example provided suggest that there is a pedagogical misalignment between the use of hands-on activities to promote education. However, hands-on activities are an established and pedagogically sound method to promote education according to both theory and practice, as you state correctly in lines 475-476. Therefore, could it be possible that you have incorrectly classified all hands-on activity as dialogical? The expert I consulted with suggested that some hands-on activities (e.g. cooking class) could be classified under dissemination. I would suggest double-checking your research methods here, and ensuring that the conclusion you have reached is not an outcome of activity misclassification.   
16. Line 471: please provide examples or justification for the conclusion: “However, practitioners may be selling themselves short in this case.”
17. Lines 472-473: please provide reference for the example. 
18. Line 474: Should begin with “here we found that in B.C. the deficit model is used most when communicating with general public audiences, and least with K-12 students”.
19. Line 475: “along with the prevalence of the dialogue model when communicating with K-12 students” - do you mean in this study? Is that not essentially the same finding as the one above according to which the deficit model is used least among K-12 students? The wording makes it sound like there are two separate findings backing your conclusion. 
20. Lines 475-476: “the notion that handson activities are particularly effective in engaging youth in an educational context” - please reference this statement. 
21. Lines 476-478: “Notably, participatory activities, such as citizen science, are more prevalent among general public audiences, while educators appear to have limited access to such activities”. Please elaborate: in this study? In general in Canada? Please compare with the findings in other studies and fields. 
22. Lines 484-485: according to this sentence, with refers to the previous one, I understand that citizen science is dialogical, please rephrase. 
23. Line 501: Regarding the primary geographic locations of services offered, it's noteworthy that targeted participatory activities are notably lacking. Rephrase: no need for both “noteworthy” and “notably”. 
24. Line 550: I suggest elaborating on what is being co-designed in the co-design process, in case not all readers are familiar with this term. 

Technical corrections

Line 69: closing parentheses missing: (Blackwood, 2009; Royal Ontario Museum, 2021)