Many citizen science developers agree that participants in citizen science projects need to receive feedback on project outputs and that they should be recognized in results and publications. However, little research has thoroughly investigated the extent to which citizen scientists find communication of scientific output to be important. Citizen science studies rarely investigate this topic as their main goal. Therefore, we conducted a review on participants' preferences for communication of data, findings, and scientific publications in papers that focus on participant motivation but which also contain relevant evidence about communication in parts of the results. We reviewed 32 peer-reviewed papers that contained relevant evidence in quantitative analyses (e.g., Likert scale-type questions) or in qualitative analyses (e.g., interviews with participants). From this review, we conclude that participants value accessibility of their collected data, communication of project findings, and acknowledgement in publications. Taking this into account can pay off, as sharing data and findings can enhance the motivation of participants to engage in the project, thereby sustaining their participation, imparting the feeling that they spent their time well, and increasing a project's learning impact. Some practical and ethical issues such as privacy concerns, however, need to be taken into account. This literature review is the first to provide an overview of citizen scientists' preferences for communication of scientific output, and is a starting point for further research that should investigate the impact of different options for data sharing and communication of findings to participants.

Verbal probability phrases are often used in science communication to express estimated risks in words instead of numbers. In this study we look at how laypeople and statisticians interpret Dutch probability phrases that are regularly used in news articles. We found that there is a large variability in interpretations, even if the phrases are given in a neutral context. Also, statisticians do not agree on the interpretation of the phrases. We conclude that science communicators should be careful in using verbal probability expressions.

To raise biodiversity awareness effectively, communicators should be aware of knowledge levels in their audiences. Species identification skills have been used in the past as a measure of what people know about species, yet it is not known whether they serve as good indicators. To study the link between species identification and in-depth species knowledge, we presented an animal knowledge test to an online audience of over 7,000 Dutch adults, and used correlation and regression analyses to determine the extent to which species identification predicts in-depth knowledge about species’ origin, habitat, diet, and behavior. We found that in-depth knowledge was higher in those who correctly identified species as compared with those who did not correctly identify species, for all four types of in-depth knowledge. Moreover, as compared to alternative variables (work, age, gender, and educational level), species identification was by far the best predictor for in-depth knowledge about species. However, species identification levels were generally higher than levels of in-depth knowledge, and knowledge gaps and misconceptions were uncovered. The results confirm the value of species identification tests, but also highlight limitations and challenges that should be taken into account when establishing knowledge levels and communicating biodiversity.

Previous studies have identified four potential issues related to the popularisation of quantum science and technology. These include framing quantum science and technology as spooky and enigmatic, a lack of explaining underlying quantum concepts of quantum 2.0 technology, framing quantum technology narrowly in terms of public good and having a strong focus on quantum computing. Before assessing the effect of these potential issues on public perceptions, it is important to first determine whether these issues are actually present in popular communication. To this end, we conducted a content analysis in which we investigated how quantum science and technology are framed in a corpus of 501 TEDx talks. We also examined to what extent quantum experts, such as quantum scientists and leaders at organisations in quantum science and technology, communicate about quantum science and technology differently from non-experts, such as scientists from other disciplines and artists. Results showed that: (1) about a quarter of the talks framed quantum science and technology as spooky/enigmatic; (2) about half of the talks explained at least one underlying quantum concept (superposition, entanglement or contextuality) of quantum 2.0 technology; (3) quantum technology is narrowly framed in terms of public good as we found six times more talks mentioning benefits than risks; and (4) the main focus is on quantum computing at the expense of other quantum technologies. In addition, experts and non-experts differ on three out of four issues (only the fourth issue is similar for both). Our findings thus show that these potential issues related to the popularisation of quantum science and technology are present but not predominant in TEDx talks. Further research should explore their effect on public perceptions of quantum science and technology.

Communication about water-induced hazards (such as floods, droughts or levee breaches) is important, in order to keep their impact as low as possible. However, sometimes the boundary between specialized and non-specialized language can be vague. Therefore, a close scrutiny of the use of hydrological vocabulary by both experts and laypeople is necessary. In this study, we compare the expert and layperson definitions of 22 common terms and pictures related to water and water hazards, to see where misunderstandings might arise both in text and pictures. Our primary objective is to analyze the degree of agreement between experts and laypeople in their definition of the used terms. In this way, we hope to contribute to improving the communication between these groups in the future. Our study was based on a survey completed by 34 experts and 119 laypeople. Especially concerning the definition of words related to water there are some profound differences between experts and laypeople: words like “river” and “river basin” turn out to have a thoroughly different interpretation between the two groups. Concerning the pictures, there is much more agreement between the groups.