Skip to main content

This website will experience intermittent outages from Saturday Dec 19 - 29. Get a Restoration Notice

SciComm & Engagement Lit Review: Series Contributor Guidelines

Please contact us to contribute!

person_reading_a_book

We seek SciComm Lit Reviews (book review-style), and we welcome co-authored reviews.

Editorial Details

  • The audience of the ESA Communication & Engagement Section blog is fellow scientists, SciComm educators, and SciComm practitioners (including scientists considering becoming communicators, those in transition, and those who are experienced communicators already).
  • We ask for at least one image (could be a photo, scan of a hand-written or drawn image, etc.). We ask for documentation of your right to reproduce the image, if it is not your own image.
  • All pitches and posts are subject to editorial approval and editing at all stages of the publishing process. We are happy to provide significant editing support should a contributor want or need. We invest in editing this way, because we ascribe to the philosophy that writing is thinking, and thus, iteration and revision are essential aspects of compelling and engaging writing.
  • Posts average ~500-1,000 words. Be sure your review has a SciComm angle, even if the book/article you reviewed was written for a broader audience (e.g., for all kinds of communicators). Your review must follow the SciComm Lit Review format (see below). The format is a series of brief sections, each prompted by a question relevant to readers of this ESA SciComm blog series.

SciComm Lit Review Format

What SciComm Lit did you review? Not included in word count

Title of Book/Article
Author(s)of Book/Article
Reviewed by: Your Name

Motive/Perspective 100 words max – What is your motive (expertise, curiosity, sharing lessons learned, etc.) and perspective (research scientist, educator, science communicator, etc.) as a reviewer?

Reader 150-200 words – In your opinion, who can benefit from referencing this piece of SciComm Lit (researchers, reporters, science communicators, educators, students, etc.)?

Marginal Notes 400-500 words – The good and the bad; share your favorite takeaways (and how you might apply them). Please also share your gripes and unmet expectations. Keep in mind that these reviews are intended to be productive – so candor, but not negativity, is the tone we’re after.

NO summary. We’re interested in your thoughts & insight. For each book reviewed, we will provide a link to the publisher’s synopsis and the book abstract.

Full citation – Please provide a full citation for the book/article in APA style.

Deadlines

  • What is your anticipated submission date? When you contact us, please specify an anticipated draft submission date. If you do not have a preference, we will propose a couple of dates.
  • Two weeks lead time. Please plan to submit your draft two weeks prior to your scheduled publication date (usually a Wednesday). This allows time for editing, confirming/finalizing draft with you, formatting and scheduling prior to publishing the following week.
  • Need to postpone? Please let us know well in advance if you need to postpone your anticipated submission date.

Submission

Please contact us directly with your pitch. Thank you in advance for your contribution(s)!

*Image credit: Christopher Michel from San Francisco, USA (Ladakh) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons