JCom América Latina

Aims & Scope

The Journal of Science Communication América Latina (JCOMAL) accepts submissions that fit within the thematic scope of the journal, at any time and in any of the following formats: Research articles (i.e. research articles) present new empirical research work using quantitative and/or qualitative methods. Your research article must be supported by an exhaustive literature review, a solid theoretical basis, sufficient detail in the methodology section to guide readers on how the authors intend to address the study objectives, solid and original results, and a conclusion with implications for research and professional communities. Research articles are peer-reviewed. Your manuscript should be between 5,000 and 8,000 words, including an abstract of between 100 and 150 words and bibliographic references. Practice insights offer critical reflections on science communication in practice, including project evaluations, action research and innovative case studies. These articles focus on how science communication is carried out in real contexts and, in particular, on how new and creative approaches are shaping the field. We particularly value contributions that present and critically examine novel, imaginative or experimental approaches to science communication, especially those that challenge conventional practices or open up new possibilities for engaging diverse audiences. Proposals must go beyond the mere description of what has been done: it is necessary to analyze why the approach is relevant, how it addresses a clearly defined practical issue or problem, and how it contributes to the practice of science communication in general, beyond the specific context. Authors should describe the empirical basis of their practice (e.g., evaluation methodology or action research approach) and discuss its implications for practitioners and researchers. Contributions should also reflect on transferability and scalability: how lessons learned could form the basis for science communication in other contexts or settings. Practice insights are peer-reviewed and should be written in a reflective and analytical style. Proposals are typically between 3,000 and 5,000 words, including references, and should include an abstract of between 100 and 150 words. Essays explore and reflect on current topics, such as a policy, a theory, or an emerging trend in science communication. Our goal is to stimulate debate in the communities dedicated to science communication, and these essays may be designed specifically for that purpose. Therefore, authors must be prepared to receive critical responses. Essays must be original and relevant, and the authors' points of view and opinions must be based on solid research on science communication or academic practice. All submitted essays will undergo the usual review process. The text should be between 3,000 and 4,500 words, including an abstract of between 100 and 150 words and bibliographic references. JCOMAL welcomes contributions that fall within the scope of the Journal, at any time and in any of the following forms: Research articles of 5000-8000 words presenting new research; contributions applying quantitative or qualitative research methods, or combinations thereof, are welcome. Review articles of up to 8000 words providing a review (state of the art) of key topics in science communication. Essays of 3000-4500 words exploring current topics, e.g., policy or theory, in science communication; our aim is to stimulate debate in science communication communities and such essays may be designed specifically for that purpose, but contributors should be prepared to accept possible critical responses. Practice Insights are based on project evaluations, action/research projects or similar case studies, and take a critical perspective on practical examples of science communication. The practical insight is expected to address a widespread issue or problem in science communication practice and offer sufficient detail to guide readers on how a science communication practice is innovative and applicable beyond the current context. The topic or problem of practice must be well-defined so that the contribution to science communication is clear. The evidence-based practice approach must be transparent (e.g., evaluation methodology or action research - or the potential for it), and the presentation should describe how the project or approach contributes (or could contribute) to innovation in global science communication practice. Comments on practice are peer-reviewed. The text should be between 3,000 and 5,000 words, including an abstract of 100 to 150 words and bibliographic references. Review Articles offer a comprehensive analysis of a topic related to science communication. They must comply with the guidelines of the PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis). The systematic review must present a clear context and motivation, as well as a comprehensive critique, including the main themes and gaps relevant to the science communication topic in question. Review articles are peer-reviewed. They should have a maximum length of 9,000 words, including an abstract of between 100 and 150 words and references. Book reviews highlight current and relevant academic and non-fiction works in the field of science communication, helping JCOMAL readers stay up-to-date on the latest publications in this field. A book review includes an overview, a summary of its content, and a presentation of the authors. Reviewers should critically analyze the book's argument and its contribution to the field, including an assessment of its strengths and weaknesses. We also accept reviews of films, television series, or plays. A review should have a maximum length of 1000 words, including a brief abstract (50 to 100 words) and a list of references. Conference reviews capture the findings of science communication events of interest to JCOMAL readers. JCOMAL publishes a limited number of conference reviews annually and aims to achieve geographical diversity in the events covered. Authors of conference reviews should not have participated in the organization of the event. A conference review should have a maximum length of 1,000 words, including a brief abstract (50 to 100 words) and a list of references.

Based on the Think.Check.Submit framework by DOAJ, COPE & OASPA. All data from verified open sources.

Subject Classification