Editorial

Abstract

Under Martin Bauer's editorship, the journal has further and remarkably improved its visibility and standing in terms of key publishing indicators.It has also increased the number of issues published per year, attracted more submissions, expanded its global coverage and put more emphasis on solidly grounded empirical research.My vision for the future of the journal is in the first place that this momentum should be continued and consolidated.As recent Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST) meetings (2010 India, 2012 Italy, 2014 Brazil) have confirmed, our field is increasingly expanding and articulating globally.Public Understanding of Science should attract high-quality submissions that reflect trends in research and diverse cultural and social contexts.This may of course imply dealing with different definitions of the field and its boundaries that characterise different regions and policy cultures.Solid, empirically based research papers should continue to be the backbone of the journal.At the same time, and as the field becomes more specialised, we also continue to need strong, influential theoretical contributions.In general, the journal should maintain the highest possible editorial standard while responding to increasing activity in the field.One of the central challenges for a journal like Public Understanding of Science -and for our field more broadly -is the dynamic dialogue between tradition and innovation.As the recent publication of collections of key texts, handbooks and encyclopaedias confirms, during the past few decades, a remarkable body of research and discussion has been produced in this domain, and we should treasure these achievements.Yet, we commonly witness in conferences or meetings and even specialised journals debates that seem to repeat assumptions and arguments and largely ignore classic contributions.A familiar example is paternalist models of communication that have been repeatedly proved invalid (or at least valid only in limited situations) in the critical literature being commonly recycled in an unproblematic fashion, at least in advocacy and discussion that is close to practice and policy.The wheel of science communication has thus been and still is often re-invented.Italian writer Italo Calvino once defined a classic as a contribution 'that has never finished to say what it has to say': classical contributions and classical themes should not just be an opportunity to look backwards.They are also valuable resources to face contemporary and future challenges in the field.Public Understanding of Science will do its best to foster this dynamic dialogue between the past, present and future by encouraging discussions and reappraisals of classical themes and concepts or by inviting contributions on 'historical moments in PUS': events, debates, figures which have marked the transformation and maturing of the field.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.