About this Research Topic

Background

The creation and broad public dissemination of unreliable science news is a major source of concern in many contemporary democratic societies. Persistent polarized public opinion over the scientific evidence of climate change and its anthropogenic causes, particularly in the United States and other Anglophone countries, has revealed the extent to which science and science news once operated largely in isolation from democratic politics. Because science news is an important means towards better democratic decision-making and policy formulation and implementation, this polarization has prompted a variety of responses in the science sphere broadly construed. Science communications researchers are examining factors and mechanisms of public misunderstanding of science and public opinion formation on science topics. Scientists and science communicators are working together to avoid misleading press releases and news reports. And science journalists – an at-risk species in the current media environment – are working harder than ever to ensure the reliability of science news.

Because most citizens get their science news from the mass media, the science-to-public and science-to-public-policy pipelines are largely mediated by what science journalists do. Yet the controversies regarding climate change and other scientific topics show that the science media’s mediating role between scientific knowledge and what citizens believe is only just beginning to be clarified. This Research Topic aims to enhance investigation of this role.

We welcome papers investigating theoretical and practical issues in the epistemology of science journalism in the contemporary sociopolitical environment. From an epistemic perspective, science journalism aims at accuracy with public uptake: that is, it aims to provide citizens with accurate, verified, and accessible information about a given scientific topic. What science journalists can and should do to achieve this epistemic aim, however, depends on the socio-political context in which they operate. We seek papers that identify and address theoretical and practical issues science journalists face regarding the best ways of achieving public understanding and acceptance of science, or facilitating responsible critique of it, in the current environment.

Examples of questions that fall under this Research Topic include: Which standard scientific-journalistic practices are being (or should be) reformed, adopted, or abandoned, and with what epistemic justification? What are the best practices for science journalists in a media environment flooded with various forms of fakery and in a context of minimal free speech constraints? How do the best practices of science journalists intersect with those of scientists, science communicators, and political actors to promote or hinder public understanding and acceptance of science results? How should responsibility for the epistemic aim be apportioned among the various contributors to science news and its public dissemination: journalists, scientists, university public relations officials, public and private research foundations, public policy institutes, social media, and others? How can the epistemic aim be promoted in the face of competing personal, professional and institutional non-epistemic interests among these contributors? What makes for responsible criticism of science and scientists of the sort that science news reports should include? How do and should differences in intended audiences and their social situations affect the reporting of scientific uncertainty and probability, choices of experts, and other epistemically relevant elements of science reporting? How might insight into the theory and practice of science news be generalized to other types of news?

We welcome collaborative and single-author contributions from science journalists, scientists, science communication scholars, science policy experts, university public relations personnel, social and political epistemologists, psychologists, and others interested in the mass media’s role in public acceptance (or rejection) and understanding (or misunderstanding) of science. Collaborations with working journalists are especially encouraged.

Keywords: Science journalism, Social and political epistemology, Climate science controversy, Epistemic

Important note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Frequently asked questions

• What is a Research Topic?

  Frontiers' Research Topics are collaborative hubs built around an emerging theme.Defined, managed, and led by renowned researchers, they bring communities together around a shared area of interest to stimulate collaboration and innovation.

  Unlike section journals, which serve established specialty communities, Research Topics are pioneer hubs, responding to the evolving scientific landscape and catering to new communities.

• Why does Frontiers publish Research Topics? 

  The goal of Frontiers' publishing program is to empower research communities to actively steer the course of scientific publishing. Our program was implemented as a three-part unit with fixed field journals, flexible specialty sections, and dynamically emerging Research Topics, connecting communities of different sizes and maturity.

  Research Topics originate from the scientific community. Many of our Research Topics are suggested by existing editorial board members who have identified critical challenges or areas of interest in their field.

• Why are Research Topics important for journals?

  As an editor, Research Topics will help you build your journal, as well as your community, around emerging, cutting-edge research. As research trailblazers, Research Topics attract high-quality submissions from leading experts all over the world.

  A thriving Research Topic can potentially evolve into a new specialty section if there is sustained interest and a growing community around it.

• How do we ensure the quality of articles within Research Topics?

  Each Research Topic must be approved by the specialty chief editor, and they fall under the editorial oversight of our editorial boards, supported by our in-house research integrity team. The same standards and rigorous peer review processes apply to articles published as part of a Research Topic as for any other article we publish.

    In 2023, 80% of the Research Topics we published were edited or co-edited by our editorial board members, who are already familiar with their journal's scope, ethos, and publishing model. All other topics are guest edited by leaders in their field, each vetted and formally approved by the specialty chief editor.

• What are the benefits of publishing my article in a Research Topic?

  Publishing your article within a Research Topic with other related articles increases its discoverability and visibility, which can lead to more views, downloads, and citations. Research Topics grow dynamically as more published articles are added, causing frequent revisiting, and further visibility.

  As Research Topics are multidisciplinary, they are cross-listed in several fields and section journals – increasing your reach even more and giving you the chance to expand your network and collaborate with researchers in different fields, all focusing on expanding knowledge around the same important topic.

  Our larger Research Topics are also converted into ebooks and receive social media promotion from our digital marketing team.

   
• What types of articles can be published in a Research Topic?

  Frontiers offers multiple article types, but it will depend on the field and section journals in which the Research Topic will be featured. The available article types for a Research Topic will appear in the drop-down menu during the submission process.

  Check available article types here 

• Can I suggest a new Research Topic? 

  Yes, we would love to hear your ideas for a topic. Most of our Research Topics are community-led and suggested by researchers in the field. Our in-house editorial team will contact you to talk about your idea and whether you’d like to edit the topic. If you’re an early-stage researcher, we will offer you the opportunity to coordinate your topic, with the support of a senior researcher as the topic editor. 

  Suggest your topic here 

• Who leads a Research Topic? 

  A team of guest editors (called topic editors) lead their Research Topic. This editorial team oversees the entire process, from the initial topic proposal to calls for participation, the peer review, and final publications.

  The team may also include topic coordinators, who help the topic editors send calls for participation, liaise with topic editors on abstracts, and support contributing authors. In some cases, they can also be assigned as reviewers.

• What is the role of a topic editor?

  As a topic editor (TE), you will take the lead on all editorial decisions for the Research Topic, starting with defining its scope. This allows you to curate research around a topic that interests you, bring together different perspectives from leading researchers across different fields and shape the future of your field. 

   

  You will choose your team of co-editors, curate a list of potential authors, send calls for participation and oversee the peer review process, accepting or recommending rejection for each manuscript submitted.

• What support will I receive when editing a new Research Topic? 

  As a topic editor, you're supported at every stage by our in-house team. You will be assigned a single point of contact to help you on both editorial and technical matters. Your topic is managed through our user-friendly online platform, and the peer review process is supported by our industry-first AI review assistant (AIRA).

• As a junior researcher, can I be involved in editing a Research Topic? 

  If you’re an early-stage researcher, we will offer you the opportunity to coordinate your topic, with the support of a senior researcher as the topic editor. This provides you with valuable editorial experience, improving your ability to critically evaluate research articles and enhancing your understanding of the quality standards and requirements for scientific publishing, as well as the opportunity to discover new research in your field, and expand your professional network.

• Can I get a certificate for editing a Research Topic?

  Yes, certificates can be issued on request. We are happy to provide a certificate for your contribution to editing a successful Research Topic.

• Who will I collaborate with?

  Research Topics thrive on collaboration and their multi-disciplinary approach around emerging, cutting-edge themes, attract leading researchers from all over the world.

• How long does it take to publish a Research Topic?

  As a topic editor, you can set the timeline for your Research Topic, and we will work with you at your pace. Typically, Research Topics are online and open for submissions within a few weeks and remain open for participation for 6 – 12 months. Individual articles within a Research Topic are published as soon as they are ready.

  Find out more about our Research Topics

• What fee support is available to authors publishing in a Research Topic?

  Our fee support program ensures that all articles that pass peer review, including those published in Research Topics, can benefit from open access – regardless of the author's field or funding situation.

  Authors and institutions with insufficient funding can apply for a discount on their publishing fees. A fee support application form is available on our website.

• Will there be a printed version of my RT?

  In line with our mission to promote healthy lives on a healthy planet, we do not provide printed materials. All our articles and ebooks are available under a CC-BY license, so you can share and print copies.