Scholarly publishing vs public science communication
The same research can be published for specialists and explained for everyone else. These are different jobs, and most research with wider relevance needs both.
What changes when you change the audience?
A paper explains what was done and gives specialists the detail needed to assess the claim. A public-facing explanation starts from the audience's existing knowledge. It provides context before method and uses only the detail needed to tell the story accurately.
| Question | Scholarly publishing | Public science communication |
|---|---|---|
| Who is it for? | Researchers and readers with relevant specialist knowledge. | Patients, teachers, policymakers, interested citizens and other non-specialists. |
| Why produce it? | Record methods, findings, limitations and scholarly contributions. | Make research understandable, relevant and useful to a particular audience. |
| What does it contain? | Data, technical context, statistical detail, citations and reproducible methods where appropriate. | The problem, findings, significance and necessary caveats, without assuming a specialist background. |
| Where is it discovered? | Journals, repositories, indexing services and scholarly search. | News, public websites, video platforms, classrooms, events, communities and social media. |
| What might success look like? | Critical scrutiny, scholarly use, replication and citations. | Comprehension, useful discussion, awareness, accessibility and meaningful use. |
On a phone? Swipe the table sideways to see every column.
Open access matters. It removes an important barrier to reading scholarly work. But a freely available paper can still assume years of specialist knowledge. Access is not the same as understanding.
Scholarly outputs include journal articles, books, preprints, conference proceedings and datasets. Not all are peer reviewed; they remain part of the scholarly communication ecosystem. A public video or plain-language explanation does not become a peer-reviewed paper simply because it links to one.
Same science. Two very different introductions.
Imagine a hypothetical study investigating a treatment that might reduce lung scarring. A scientific paper needs to explain its design, analysis and uncertainty. The public explanation should begin somewhere more recognisable.
The research paper
Starts with prior literature and an explicit research question. Explains treatment groups, biological measures, modelling, limitations and the strength of evidence. Readers can inspect how the conclusion was reached.
The public explanation
Starts by explaining what lung scarring does to breathing, why current treatments have limits, what the researchers tested and what the findings might mean. It still distinguishes an early result from an established therapy.
What does the public version leave out?
It may leave the full statistical model, detailed assay settings and complete literature review in the linked paper. It must not leave out the fact that a result is preliminary, a finding is uncertain or a treatment has not been tested in humans.
Good science communication changes the explanation, not the underlying evidence.
How to turn a paper into a useful public explanation
The storytelling part is not about inventing drama. It is about giving people a logical way into unfamiliar material. A simple sequence often works better than reading out the abstract.
Give the audience a reason to care
What problem did the researchers notice? Who is affected? What is difficult or unanswered?
Choose the central idea
Don't squeeze an entire paper into a three-minute explanation. Decide what the audience should remember.
Make the science visible
Use diagrams, examples, carefully chosen visuals or comparisons to explain how the result was reached.
Say what the result does not show
Avoid turning correlation into cause or early research into a proven treatment. Link to the full publication.
Choose the format for the audience. A written explainer may suit a policy team; a demonstration may suit a school; an animation may make a molecular process clearer. Professional production is useful only when it serves that communication job.
Is public communication the same as public engagement?
Not quite. A video, article or podcast can communicate research to people who have not encountered it before. Public engagement often goes further: researchers listen to people, invite questions, work with communities or involve them in shaping the work.
One-way can still be useful
A researcher publishes a clear explainer describing the results of a study, with accessible subtitles and a route to the source paper.
There is a two-way relationship
The research team runs a discussion with people affected by the topic, listens to feedback and changes its future communication or research approach.
UK Research and Innovation describes public engagement broadly and highlights dialogue, equitable partnerships and participation. Its guidance also distinguishes public engagement from research impact, while recognising that engagement can help generate impact. Read UKRI’s public engagement guidance.
Publication is the starting point, not necessarily the finish line. Once a paper exists, ask who else could use the knowledge and what they need in order to understand it.
What should a researcher do after the paper is accepted?
01 / Define
Which non-specialists could benefit: patients, practitioners, educators, communities or decision-makers?
02 / Translate
Choose a format that shows the findings clearly, includes relevant limitations and links to the original work.
03 / Disseminate
Work with institutional teams, trusted organisations, professional groups or public events rather than only uploading a file.
Researchers at Purdue University have described using SciTube animation to make their published research more accessible. That is one practical example, not a requirement for everyone. For other formats, start with your institution's communications team or create a plain-language page.
To see how animation can support the process, browse the SciTube animation library or our editorial standards.
Scholarly publishing and science communication FAQs
Is scholarly publishing the same as science communication?
Scholarly publishing is one part of scholarly communication. Public science communication is intended for a wider audience and normally uses different language, context and formats.
Does publishing an open-access paper count as public engagement?
Open access makes a paper available to read. Public engagement usually involves additional work to connect people with research and may include listening, dialogue and participation.
Does a science animation replace the journal article?
No. An animation can explain the problem, methods or implications, but the article remains the source for detailed evidence, limits and references.
Does simplifying research make it less accurate?
It should not. Effective communication preserves the central findings and important uncertainty while removing unnecessary specialist barriers.
What is the best science storytelling structure?
Start with a question or problem, explain what researchers tested or observed, make the finding understandable, and finish with its significance and limitations.