ArticlePloS one2025
Quality criteria for evaluating creative and interactive science dissemination in public outreach efforts: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Creative and interactive science dissemination is gaining recognition as an important component of public science communication, particularly in efforts to bridge the gap between science and society. This scoping review aims to identify science-based quality criteria to develop a conceptual framework for evaluating the quality of public dissemination practices. The research question of this review is: What criteria are described and used in the literature to assess the quality of creative and interactive public science dissemination practices? We mapped, identified, and synthesized key criteria by conducting a scoping review in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines. The review focused on studies from 2004 onwards, reflecting the growing role of digital platforms and the rise of social media in public science dissemination. An initial search retrieved 8745 studies from the ERIC (USDE), Web of Science (Clarivate), Scopus (Elsevier), ProQuest Central (ProQuest), Open Dissertations (EBSCO), and Communication and Mass Media Complete (EBSCO) databases. After a three-stage screening process by multiple, independent screeners, 18 studies were selected that met the inclusion criteria (perspective, outcome, phenomenon of interest, and study domain). The framework was developed through iterative thematic analysis. Its comprehensiveness, practical relevance, and applicability were further examined through face validity workshops with practitioners and academics. The resulting evaluation framework comprises three thematic sets of criteria: normative criteria (addressing the scientific base of the dissemination), substantive criteria (covering translation, presentation, and design of the science dissemination), and performative criteria (focusing on the impact of the dissemination). This framework is intended to support the development of science communication that is engaging, inclusive, and impactful for broad audiences, while also encouraging reflective practice among science communicators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.