What Good Looks Like on YouTube (And Why Most Research Videos Fall Short)

SciTube
$
Scitube Library
$
blog
$
What Good Looks Like on YouTube (And Why Most Research Videos Fall Short)

With video dominating online information consumption, we took a look at how leading science communication platforms are performing — and what results actually mean.

There’s a common assumption in academia:
If the research is good, it will find an audience.

In reality, that’s rarely true.

Unfortunately, we aren’t all Kevin Costner in Field of Dreams… if we build it, they don’t just come.

Creating good videos is one thing.
Getting people to actually see and engage with them is another.

And that’s where science communication is changing.

To understand why, we analysed YouTube performance across a range of major academic publishers, author services, and science communication platforms.

Not viral outliers.
Not one-off successes.
Typical performance per video over the past year.

What we found is simple.

Most videos are barely being watched.

And YouTube itself — the second largest search engine in the world — is barely being utilised by the research sector.

It highlights a bigger issue:

Even today, much of science communication is still being kept within the same scholarly circles as research papers.

Which is a huge missed opportunity.

What does “good” actually look like on YouTube?

In a world obsessed with metrics, what’s the benchmark?

Most people compare research content to mainstream creators like MrBeast or viral videos.

That’s where it breaks.

Because most videos — especially those created by science communication platforms — don’t behave like entertainment content.

The reality:

• A huge number of YouTube videos never pass 100 views
• Many stall under 1,000
• Consistently hitting 3,000–5,000 views puts you in a very strong position (top ~10%)
• 5,000+ is pushing into top-tier performance for educational and science communication content

How science communication platforms are actually performing

Ranked by average views per video (past 12 months)

1. SciTube
• Average: ~3,800
• Median: ~3,400

2. The Conversation
• Average: ~650
• Median: ~240

3. Royal Society of Chemistry
• Average: ~230
• Median: ~200

4. Elsevier
• Average: ~220
• Median: ~130

5. SAGE Publishing
• Average: ~180
• Median: ~120

6. Springer Nature
• Average: ~160
• Median: ~120

7. PLOS
• Average: ~140
• Median: ~90

8. IOP Publishing
• Average: ~110
• Median: ~70

9. Taylor & Francis
• Average: ~95
• Median: ~68

10. Research Square
• Average: ~75
• Median: ~26

11. Cactus Communications
• Average: ~60
• Median: ~45

12. ResearchGate
• Average: 0
• Median: 0
• No videos published in the past year

What this means for science communication

Most research videos reach fewer than 200 people

These organisations publish some of the best research in the world.

Yet when they turn to video — one of the most powerful science communication tools available today — it often reaches the equivalent of a small seminar room.

Most performance is inconsistent

For many organisations, the average is higher than the median.

That usually means:

👉 A few videos perform well… but most don’t.

Video is massively underutilised in science communication

One of the biggest insights here isn’t just performance.

It’s how underutilised video still is across science communication platforms.

And when it is used, there are missed opportunities everywhere.

Most outputs are:

• Too long or too short
• Slide-based with a talking head (presentation, not engagement)
• Structurally dense
• Designed for specialists

But the audience has changed.

Video is now the most consumed content format on the internet.

If you want science communication to be effective — to be seen, discovered, and used — it needs to exist in that environment.

We’re not saying replace traditional formats.

Text has its place.
Audio has its place.
In-person presentations still matter.

But they should all be supported by video as part of a modern science communication strategy.

And one more thing.

People don’t really search for content anymore.

There’s too much of it.

They stumble across it.

If your research isn’t on platforms like YouTube, it’s far less likely to be discovered.

Why science communication is falling behind

Science communication hasn’t kept up with how people consume information.

Today’s audiences expect:

• Clear, structured explanations
• Visual storytelling
• Shorter, more focused content
• Something they can understand quickly

This includes:

• Students
• Funders
• Industry
• Policymakers
• Interdisciplinary researchers

If research isn’t presented in that format, it doesn’t get seen.

The opportunity for science communication platforms

Some organisations are still focused primarily on peer-to-peer communication.

That’s fine.

But even then, YouTube is used by millions of researchers, educators, policymakers, and professionals.

It remains one of the most underused science communication platforms available.

We’re also seeing more publishers invest in science communication.

But too often, outputs are still:

Long
Complex
Hard to engage with

If the goal is broader visibility, that approach doesn’t go far enough.

There is no shortage of high-quality research.

What’s missing is effective science communication.

That’s where the gap is.

Want to see what this looks like for your research?

If you’re exploring different science communication platforms, or want to understand how your research could perform on YouTube:

We can show you.

• What your current visibility actually looks like
• Where the gaps are
• What a scalable science communication approach could look like