![]() ![]() Possible contributors but these Commentaries will be commissionedĭirectly by the journal's editors. Publishes occasional Commentaries, comprising several Authors wishing to propose a review paper should contact the Editorial Office with a topic proposal that outlines the area to be explored and explains why this topic is pertinent to science communication and a review needed peer reviewed. Review Articles of up to 8000 words, these provide a comprehensive review of a topic pertinent to science communication. Letters of up to 1000 words, may be submitted as responses to published papers or to comment on topical issues peer reviewed. ![]() Other major science communication-related publications and events not peer reviewed. Practical examples of science communication peer reviewed.īook or Conference Reviews of c.1000 words on books, conferences, festivals or Practice Insights of 3000 to 5000 words which reflect on projectĮvaluations, action/research projects or similar studies focused on May be specifically designed for that purpose but contributors shouldīe prepared to accept possibly critical responses peer reviewed. Of policy or theory, in science communication we aim to stimulateĭiscussion in the science communication communities and such essays Methods, or combinations of these peer reviewed.Įssays of 3000-4500 words which explore current issues, e.g. Welcome contributions applying quantitative or qualitative research Research Articles of 5000-8000 words which present new research we We invite submissions in any of the following forms:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |