Evidence-Based Methods of Communicating Science to the Public through Data Visualization
, Kalina Borkiewicz 1, Jill P. Naiman 1,3, Stuart Levy 1 and Jeff Carpenter 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see attached file for comments
Thank you!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
l.27 – I have added a clause to try to add the requested clarity: ‘Instead, audience needs- as revealed through existing studies, evaluations or audience research-‘
l.48 – This is already a scaled back description of the scicomm genre that is the focus of the paper.
l.69 - Unfortunately, the Sustainability journal submission system seems to have messed up the formatting in some places in the document. I think I have fixed all the errors it created now.
l.148 – I have implemented the numbers in the headings. Not sure if Sustainability will let them stay. I have also increased font size for the level 1 headings, as the heading formatting seems to have been flattened out by the Sustainability journal submission system
l.149 – to clarify, I changed to ‘evidence gathering’ and mentioned that this would be used to inform science communication
- 182 – Done, added: ‘This is a kind of evidence-based science communication practice.’
I.202 – I have removed the word ‘groundbreaking’ as it was too self-congratulatory.
I.211 – this paper is explicitly described as an essay. There is no claim to global representativeness, and the specific context that drove the empirical process is already explained in the paper.
I.227 - Unfortunately, the Sustainability journal submission system seems to have messed up the formatting in some places in the document. I think I have fixed all the errors it created now. We disagree on the concern that too many example quotations are provided.
I.233 – The labels are already effectively numbered with the figure numbers. Introducing an additional set of numbers (that don’t match the figure numbers) will confuse matters.
Fig. 11 / Fig. 12 - added: ‘In addition, the size of the label was more precisely calibrated to the scene in this final stage.’
I.405 – the manuscript is already on the long side. Adding an entire impact study on top does not seem realistic. The manuscript is process oriented (not impact), as signalled in the opening line: ‘This essay presents a real-world demonstration of the evidence-based science communication process’. Stay tuned for a later paper about impact!
- 415 ff - There is no claim to sample representativeness, and the specific context that drove the empirical process is already explained in the paper.
- 438 ff. – Participants were given the option of whether they wished to be named or not. Their wishes have been followed.
Fig. 15 – Participants were given the option of whether they wished to be shown or not. Their wishes have been followed, with full signed media consent.
l.564 – the first paragraph has been moved down to be the second paragraph
Reviewer 2 Report
The abstract provides a clear overview of the essay's content and purpose. It effectively highlights the importance of evidence-based science communication, specifically in the context of creating data visualizations for public audiences. The use of concrete examples from the Advanced Visualization Lab's work on two scientific documentary films helps to make the essay more relatable and accessible.
To improve the abstract, it could benefit from a more specific statement about the findings of the essay. For instance, the abstract mentions that the team used audience research to inform their strategies and designs, but it does not explicitly state what they found. Adding a sentence or two that summarizes the team's key insights or recommendations could help readers better understand the essay's contributions.
This research provides a clear summary of the key points made in the essay and effectively highlights the importance of evidence-based science communication. The author emphasizes the need for science communicators to prioritize audience understanding and use empirical evidence to guide their decision-making. The inclusion of specific examples from the Advanced Visualization Lab's work helps to make the argument more concrete and relatable.
To improve, it could benefit from a more explicit statement about the implications of the author's findings. For example, the conclusion could state more clearly what changes should be made to science communication practice based on the evidence presented in the essay. Additionally, it could be helpful to provide more specific recommendations for how science communication teams can integrate audience research and evaluation skills into their work.
Author Response
We added the following to the abstract:
Findings revealed specific techniques that were effective in information labels. For example, audiences appreciated the use of an outline of the earth to demonstrate scale in scientific visualizations relating to The Sun
Reviewer 3 Report
This was an extremely interesting read and I'm glad it came across my table, I'll be looking into the work more. The writing and study were well reported. Some minor editing/typesetting is required where there are quotes from participants - it is very difficult to tell what is text from the authors and what are quotes.
What is the link to Sustainability? It is not made clear anywhere in the paper so I wonder whether this is the right home for this study.
Author Response
Unfortunately, the Sustainability journal submission system seems to have messed up the formatting in some places in the document. I think I have fixed all the errors it created now.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
There have been no changes made to make this more relevant to the journal you've submitted to. There are no connections made to the concept of sustainability (environmental, cultural, economic or social) or sustainable development.
