Science communication is an important part of research, including in the geosciences, as it can (1) benefit both society and science and (2) make science more publicly accountable. However, much of this work takes place in “shadowlands” that are neither fully seen nor understood. These shadowlands are spaces, aspects, and practices of science communication that are not clearly defined and may be harmful with respect to the science being communicated or for the science communicators themselves. With the increasing expectation in academia that researchers should participate in science communication, there is a need to address some of the major issues that lurk in these shadowlands. Here, the editorial team of Geoscience Communication seeks to shine a light on the shadowlands of geoscience communication by geoscientists in academia and suggest some solutions and examples of effective practice. The issues broadly fall under three categories: (1) harmful or unclear objectives, (2) poor quality and lack of rigor, and (3) exploitation of science communicators working within academia. Ameliorating these problems will require the following action: (1) clarifying objectives and audiences, (2) adequately training science communicators, and (3) giving science communication equivalent recognition to other professional activities. In this editorial, our aim is to cultivate a more transparent and responsible landscape for geoscience communication – a transformation that will ultimately benefit the progress of science; the welfare of scientists; and, more broadly, society at large.