Introduction In a thought-provoking post from Retraction Watch on July 29, 2024,1 a surprising comparison posed an arresting question: What do fairytales and scientific papers have in common? The answer highlighted a complex issue: Just as fairytales create an illusion, so too can researchers, sometimes unintentionally, generate an “illusion of novelty” in their findings. This happens particularly when results cling to the edge of statistical significance, suggesting something novel without clear substantive weight. This parallel sheds light on a critical, yet often overlooked, facet of science communication: the way research is crafted, communicated, and perceived, even before it reaches publication. Although distinct in focus, the August 2024 webinar,2 organized and moderated by Eleonora Colangelo, and generously sponsored by Digital Science, resonated strongly with the concerns raised in the Retraction Watch piece. The overall discussion focused on science communication in the prepublication phase, an area where researchers have the opportunity not just to shape narratives but to engage openly in shaping methodologies, analyses, and findings before they are set in academic stone. Our webinar speakers offered insights that push science communication toward inclusivity and innovation, emphasizing the need for accessible language and targeted mentorship programs, particularly for early-career researchers and those from diverse linguistic backgrounds. The conversation examined key themes, such as the role of mentorship in guiding researchers, the benefits of inclusive peer review practices, and new peer review models that incorporate broader perspectives. In unpacking these themes, the discussion reinforced the idea that impactful science communication begins well before […]