Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-13
https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2021-13

  03 Jun 2021

03 Jun 2021

Review status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal GC.

Editorial: Geoscience communication – Planning to make it publishable 

John K. Hillier1, Katharine E. Welsh2, Mathew Stiller-Reeve3,4, Rebecca K. Priestley5, Heidi A. Roop6, Tiziana Lanza7, and Sam Illingworth8 John K. Hillier et al.
  • 1Geography and Environment, Loughbrough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK
  • 2Department of Geography and International Development, University of Chester, Chester, CH1 4BJ, UK
  • 3Konsulent Stiller-Reeve, Valestrandsfossen, Norway
  • 4Center for Climate and Energy Transformation, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
  • 5Centre for Science in Society, Te Herenga Waka - Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
  • 6Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota, USA
  • 7Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Rome, Italy
  • 8Department of Learning and Teaching Enhancement, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh EH11 4BN

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) behave 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.

John K. Hillier et al.

Status: open (until 29 Jul 2021)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Review of gc-2021-13', Martin Archer, 04 Jun 2021 reply

John K. Hillier et al.

John K. Hillier et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 205 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
157 43 5 205 1 1
  • HTML: 157
  • PDF: 43
  • XML: 5
  • Total: 205
  • BibTeX: 1
  • EndNote: 1
Views and downloads (calculated since 03 Jun 2021)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 03 Jun 2021)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 194 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 194 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 15 Jun 2021
Download
Short summary
In this editorial we expand upon the brief advice in the first editorial of Geoscience Communication (Illingworth et al., 2018), illustrating what constitutes robust and publishable work for this journal, 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.
Altmetrics