2018. augusztus 26. vasárnap, 12:42

Veszelszki Ágnes – Falyuna Nóra 2019: Az áltudományosság leleplezése érveléstechnikai-nyelvészeti eszközökkel. Médiakutató 2019/3: 3951.

Falyuna Nóra 2018: A(z ál)tudományos stílus és az internet. Jel-Kép, 2018/4. 35–50.

Aczél Petra – Veszelszki Ágnes 2018: Egy új tudománykommunikációs modell szükségességéről. A sciXcom-modell. Jel-Kép, 2018/4. 5–18.

Falyuna Nóra 2017: Az áltudományos szövegek pragmatikai vizsgálata. Esettanulmány a lúgosító diéta példáján. Századvég, 84. 85−107.

Falyuna Nóra 2019: Esettanulmány a magyar laposföld-hívők online közösségének diskurzusáról. Médiakutató XXX/4: 65-82.

Veszelszki Ágnes - Cser Nóra (szerk.) 2018: Tudománykommunikáció konferencia. Absztraktkötet. Budapest: BCE MKI.



Allgaier, J., Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., Lo, Y.-Y., & Peters, H. P. (2013). Journalism and social media as means of observing the contexts of science. BioScience, 63(4), 284–287. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.4.8

Bauer, M. (2012). Public attention to science 1820–2010: A "longue durée" picture. In S. Rödder, M. Franzen, & P. Weingart (Eds.), The sciences' media connection—Public communication and its repercussions (pp. 35–57). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Bauer, M., & Bucchi, M. (Eds.). (2007). Journalism, science and society: Science communication between news and public relations. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Borchelt, R., & Nielsen, C. (2014). Public relations in science: Managing the trust portfolio. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed., pp. 58–69). London, UK: Routledge.

Bucchi, M. (1996). When scientists turn to the public: Alternative routes in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 5(4), 375–394. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/5/4/005

Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (Eds.). (2014a). Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.

Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (Eds.). (2014b). Science communication research: Themes and challenges. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1–14). London, UK: Routledge.

Darling, E., Shiffman, D., Cȏté, I., & Drew, J. (2013). The role of Twitter in the life cycle of a scientific publication. Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 32–43. doi:10.4033/iee.2013.6.6.f

Dunwoody, S. (2014). Science journalism: Prospects in the digital age. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed., pp. 27–39). London, UK: Routledge.

Dunwoody, S., & Ryan, M. (1985). Scientific barriers to the popularization of science in the mass media. Journal of Communication, 35(1), 26–42.

Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e123. doi:10.2196/jmir.2012

Frankel, M. S. (2015). An empirical exploration of scientists' social responsibilities. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(3), 301–310. doi:10.1080/23299460.2015.1096737

Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.

Giberson, K., & Artigas, M. (2007). Oracles of science: Celebrity scientists versus God and religion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Goodell, R. (1977). The visible scientists. Boston, MA: Little Brown.

Hoffman, A. J. (2015). How culture shapes the climate change debate. Stanford, CA: Stanford Briefs.

Holliman, R., Whitelegg, L., Scanlon, E., Smidt, S., & Thomas, J. (Eds.). (2009). Investigating science communication in the information age: Implications for public engagement and popular media. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Murthy, D. (2013). Twitter: Social communication in the Twitter age. Digital media and society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Nelkin, D. (1987). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. New York, NY: Freeman.

Peters, H. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (Suppl. 3), 14102–14109. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212745110

Peters, H. P., Heinrichs, H., Jung, A., Kallfass, M., & Petersen, I. (2008). Medialization of science as a prerequisite of its legitimization and political relevance. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts (pp. 71–92). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Pielke, R. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Priem, J., Costello, K., & Dzuba, T. (2011). First-year graduate students just wasting time? Prevalence and use of Twitter among scholars. Retrieved from http://jasonpriem.com/self-archived/twitterscholars-poster-abstract.pdf

Rödder, S. (2012). The ambivalence of visible scientists. In S. Rödder, M. Franzen, & P. Weingart (Eds.), The sciences' media connection: Public communication and its repercussions (pp. 155–177). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Rödder, S., Franzen, M., & Weingart, P. (Eds.). (2012). The sciences' media connection: Public communication and its repercussions. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Rödder, S., & Schäfer, M. S. (2010). Repercussion and resistance: An empirical study on the interrelation between science and mass media. Communications, 35(3), 249–267. doi:10.1515/comm.2010.014

Ross, C., Terras, M., Warwick, C., & Welsh, A. (2011). Enabled backchannel: Conference Twitter use by digital humanists. Journal of Documentation, 67(2), 214–237. doi:10.1108/00220411111109449

Schneider, S. H. (1986). Both sides of the fence: The scientist as source and author. In S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news (pp. 215–222). New York, NY: Free Press.

Shiffman, D. S. (2012). Twitter as a tool for conservation education and outreach: What scientific conferences can do to promote live-tweeting. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2(3), 257–262. doi:10.1007/s13412-012-0080-1

van Eperen, L., & Marincola, F. M. (2011). How scientists use social media to communicate their research. Journal of Translational Medicine, 9(199), 1–3. doi:10.1186/1479-5876-9-199

van Noorden, R. (2014). Scientists and the social network. Nature, 512(7513), 126–129.

Walter, Stefanie − Silva-Schmidt, Fenja De − Brüggemann, Michael 2017: From "Knowledge Brokers" to Opinion Makers: How Physical Presence Affected Scientists' Twitter Use During the COP21 Climate Change Conference. International Journal of Communication 11(2017), 570–591 1932–8036/20170005

Weingart, P. (2002). The moment of truth for science: The consequences of the "knowledge society" for society and science. EMBO Reports, 3(8), 703–706. doi:10.1093/embo-reports/kvf165

Zelizer, B. (1993). Journalists as interpretive communities. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 10(3), 219–237. doi:10.1080/15295039309366865


Anderson AA, Huntington HE. 2017. Social Media, Science, and Attack Discourse: How twitter discussions of climate change use sarcasm and incivility. Science Communication. 39(5):598–620. doi:10.1177/1075547017735113.

Bakhshi S, Shamma DA, Gilbert E. 2014. Faces engage us: Photos with faces attract more likes and comments on Instagram. Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '14.:965–974. doi:10.1145/2556288.2557403.

Bakshy E, Messing S, Adamic LA. 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science. 348(6239):1130–1132. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160.

Balgopal MM, Wallace AM, Dahlberg S. 2017. Writing from different cultural contexts: How college students frame an environmental SSI through written
arguments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 54(2):195–218. doi:10.1002/tea.21342.

Bell S. 2006. Concerned scientists, pragmatic politics and Australia's green drought. Science and Public Policy. 33(8):561–570. doi:10.3152/147154306781778687.

Bowman SR, Biermans G, Hicks A, Jevtić DM, Rodriguez-Gil JL, Brockmeier EK. 2015. A guide for using social media in environmental science and a case study by the Students of SETAC. Environmental Sciences Europe. 27(1):1–8. doi:10.1186/s12302-015-0062-5.

Brossard D. 2013. New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110(Supplement_3):14096–14101. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212744110.

Brownell SE, Price JV, Steinman L. 2013. Science communication to the general public: Why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training. Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education. 12(1):E6–E10.

Duke S. 2002. Wired science: Use of World Wide Web and e-mail in science public relations. Public Relations Review. 28(3):311–324. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00135-2.

Ecklund EH, James SA, Lincoln AE. 2012. How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach. PLoS ONE. 7(5):3–7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036240.

Fiske ST, Dupree C. 2014. Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111(Supplement_4):13593–13597. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317505111.

Hwong Y-L, Oliver C, Van Kranendonk M, Sammut C, Seroussi Y. 2017. What makes you tick? The psychology of social media engagement in space science communication. Computers in Human Behavior. 68:480–492. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.068.

Jang SM. 2014. Seeking Congruency or Incongruency Online?: Examining selective exposure to four controversial science issues. Science Communication. 36(2):143–167. doi:10.1177/1075547013502733.

Jia H, Liu L. 2014. Unbalanced progress : The hard road from science popularisation to Public Understanding of Science. Public Understanding of Science. 23(1):32–37. doi:10.1177/0963662513476404.

Kahle K, Sharon AJ, Baram-Tsabari A. 2016. Footprints of fascination: Digital traces of public engagement with particle physics on CERN's social media platforms. PLoS ONE. 11(5). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0156409.

Leong CC, Jarvis D, Howlett M, Migone A. 2011. Controversial science-based technology public attitude formation and regulation in comparative perspective: The state construction of policy alternatives in Asia. Technology in Society. 33(1–2):128–136. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.007.

Miah A. 2017. Nanoethics, Science Communication, and a Fourth Model for Public Engagement. NanoEthics. 11(2):139–152. doi:10.1007/s11569-017-0302-9.

Seiler TB, Engwall M, Hollert H. 2013. Lost in translation? Ways for environmental sciences to communicate about risk and research. Environmental Sciences Europe. 25(1):2–4. doi:10.1186/2190-4715-25-8.

Langan, Laura M. - Yuanyuan Cheng - Hunka, Agnieszka D. 2019: Empirically supported out-of-the-box strategies for science communication by environmental scientists. (preprint) doi: 10.1002/ieam.4145.