Janise Brück

Held one day before the 75th ICA conference, the fourth Science Communication Preconference brought together about 60 international researchers to explore the role and contribution of science communication to the broader field of communication research. The conference’s emphasis on inclusion, global perspectives, and theoretical development, as underscored by two keynotes and 23 presentations, was highlighted by the official recognition of science communication as an ICA interest group – an encouraging milestone for the field at a time when science is increasingly under pressure.

Copy-pasting is harmless in many contexts, but in the field of journalism, it has transformed into a widely debated practice known as churnalism. Churnalism, or copy-and-paste journalism, refers to a journalistic practice in which journalists (heavily) rely on external third-party materials, leading to news stories that are (verbatim) reproductions of this material. Although the practice is accused of having become particularly widespread in digital journalism, theoretical approaches have examined the complex relationship between journalism and its sources for decades. This theoretically broad and well-established discussion is why research on churnalism not only reflects different understandings but also contains mixed findings and evaluations. Consequently, this systematic review aims to provide an overview of the research state on churnalism by qualitatively examining 46 papers from the last 25 years (1999–2024). Our findings confirm that churnalism is a multifaceted practice, understood as the recycling of both journalistic and non-journalistic material. The literature contains different indicators of churnalism and has produced mixed results on its prevalence. Influencing factors include a lack of journalistic resources and the characteristics of (non-)journalistic organizations, demonstrating that churnalism entails both benefits and risks for journalists. Further research should focus on countermeasures and the potential effects of churnalism.

The politicization of science refers to the changing relationship between science and politics (e.g., Post & Ramirez, 2018). Different concepts of politicization of science focus on various aspects, e.g. political actors highlighting scientific uncertainty to question the scientific consensus or influencing scientific processes and research. In general, the politicization of science refers to the process by which science gradually takes on a political meaning and is used to pursue political goals, leading to a closer relationship between science and politics (e.g., Alinejad & Honari, 2024; Schmid-Petri et al., 2022). However, there is a lack of a multidimensional conceptualization that reflects this general understanding and also considers the media as a driver of the politicization of science (Brüggemann et al., 2020). In this perspective, the politicization of science is a process that unfolds in as well as through media coverage and can be analyzed using indicators such as the thematic blurring of politics and science, politicized actor structures, and politicized news values in media coverage (e.g., Brück et al., 2024). Field of application/Theoretical foundation The relationship between science and politics has been discussed for decades. Theoretical perspectives, such as those from Luhmann (e.g., social systems theory; 1995) and Habermas (e.g., scientization of politics; 1987), explore the complexities of this relationship and its societal implications. The politicization of science presents significant challenges, especially for science communication, which is central to the interaction between politics, science, and publics (e.g., Brüggemann et al., 2020). As science becomes more media-oriented, strategic science communication must navigate the politicized public discourses while maintaining scientific integrity. Journalists play a crucial role in this process by selecting scientific information and providing it for public and political discourse (e.g., Brüggemann et al., 2020; Scheufele, 2014). The politicization of science in media coverage is mainly analyzed regarding science and health communication, with public debates on climate change and COVID-19 being prominent examples (e.g., Hart et al., 2020; Post & Ramirez, 2018). References/Combination with other methods of data collection To identify trends in the politicization of science, the media coverage is often analyzed through content analysis. Mixed-methods approaches have not yet been used; however, Alinejad and Honari (2024) focus on the online politicization of science on Twitter in a quantitative-qualitative approach, and there are survey experiments that test the effects of the politicization of science and ways to counteract it (e.g., Bolsen & Druckman, 2015). Example studies Depending on how the politicization of science is understood, various studies examine distinct aspects of the politicization of science in media coverage: Chinn et al., 2020; Hart et al., 2020; Leidecker-Sandmann & Lehmkuhl, 2022; Schmidt, 2023. Brück et al. (2024) offer a holistic concept of multiple indicators of the politicization of science that is applied to media coverage. Information on Schmidt (2023) Author: Hans Schmidt Research question: What differences in politicization existed between COVID-19 and other pandemic reporting? (RQ1) Object of analysis: The study analyzed a sample of 1,196 news articles from the New York Times and the Washington Post covering key pandemic periods in the 20th and 21st centuries. For 2020 and 2009–2010, due to the extensive volume of content, articles were selected based on one constructed week per month. Time frame of analysis: January 1918–December 1919; February 1957–December 1958; September 1968–April 2009; December 1970–April 2010; January 2020–June 2020 (the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic). Information about Variables Variables: The politicization of pandemic-related reporting was examined by four measures: (a) political angle, (b) mentions of political actors, (c) quotes from political actors, and (d) story origin. Level of analysis: news article Variables and values: see Table 1 Table 1: Variables and values (Schmidt, 2023). Variables Description Political angle The variable investigates, “if a political perspective or angle (involving policy, implications, analysis, or strategy) was addressed” (p. 35). Mentions of political actors The variable investigates “the number of times political actors were mentioned (…) in each news report” (p. 35). Quotes from (political) actors The variable investigates “the number of times political actors (…) quoted in each news report” (p. 35). In addition, quotes from other actors were also measured, such as “public health officials, individual health care professionals, representatives of health care institutions, researchers, business spokespersons or analysts, health-related NGOs, civil society and movement groups, alternative practitioners, ordinary people/patients, others” (p. 36). Story origin The variable investigates, “if the story originated with the activities of a political actor” (p. 35). These include actions or statements of political actors, government agencies, health care institutions, researchers, international agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) or “businesses, breaking news, research publications, legal hearings, court judgments, other/undetermined” (p. 36). Reliability: “Coding was conducted by the lead researcher and an assistant, a communications undergraduate student who had been trained by the lead researcher. To ensure intercoder reliability, both individuals coded 96 overlapping articles, accounting for 8.0% of the sample of COVID-19 pandemic-related articles. Analysis of nominal/categorical data showed a 94.8% agreement between coders, which is considered acceptable...

Most public audiences in Germany receive scientific information via a variety of (digital) media; in these contexts, media act as intermediaries of trust in science by providing information that present reasons for public audiences to place their trust in science. To describe this process, the study introduces the term “trust cues”. To identify such content-related trust cues, an explorative qualitative content analysis has been applied to German journalistic, populist, social, and other (non-journalistic) online media (“n” = 158). In total, “n” = 1,329 trust cues were coded. The findings emphasize the diversity of mediated trust, with trust cues being connected to dimensions of trust in science (established: expertise, integrity, benevolence; recently introduced: transparency, dialogue). Through this analysis, the study aims for a better understanding of mediated trust in science. Deriving this finding is crucial since public trust in science is important for individual and collective informed decision-making and crises management.

Scientists increasingly use Twitter for communication about science. The microblogging service has been heralded for its potential to foster public engagement with science; thus, measuring how engaging, that is dialogue-oriented, tweet content is, has become a relevant research object. Tweet content designed in an engaging, dialogue-oriented way is also supposed to link to user interaction (e.g. liking, retweeting). The present study analyzed content-related and functional indicators of engagement in scientists’ tweet content, applying content analysis to original tweets ( n = 2884) of 212 communication scholars. Findings show that communication scholars tweet mostly about scientific topics, with, however, low levels of engagement. User interaction, nevertheless, correlated with content-related and functional indicators of engagement. The findings are discussed in light of their implications for public engagement with science.