References

  1. Anderson, Chris. (2004, October 1). The long tail. Wired. https://www.wired.com/2004/10/tail/
  2. Birch, Hayley. (2011). The social web in science communication. In David J. Bennett & Richard C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful science communication: Telling it like it is (pp. 280–293). Cambridge University Press.
  3. Borghol, Youmna, Ardon, Sebastien, Carlsson, Niklas, Eager, Derek, & Mahanti, Anirban. (2012). The untold story of the clones: Content-agnostic factors that impact YouTube video popularity. In KDD '12: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 1186–1194). ACM. http://www.ida.liu.se/~nikca/papers/kdd12.pdf
  4. Boy, Bettina, Bucher, Hans-Jürgen, & Christ, Katharina. (2020). Audiovisual science communication on TV and YouTube. How recipients understand and evaluate science videos. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.608620
  5. Braun, Virginia, & Clarke, Victoria. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  6. Braun, Virginia, & Clarke, Victoria. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.
  7. Cavanah, Sarah, Owens, Seth, Kemink, Kaylan, Riley, Collin, Kim, Soojung, Lee, Joonghwa, & Ellis-Felege, Susan. (2023). Birds of feather flock together: A longitudinal study of a social media outreach effort. Biological Conservation, 281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109999
  8. Debove, Stéphane, Füchslin, Tobias, Louis, Tania, & Masselot, Pierre. (2021). French science communication on YouTube: A survey of individual and institutional communicators and their channel characteristics. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.612667
  9. Deng, Quan. (2024). Who are the science audiences? A typology study on digital scientific audiences: Persona, performance, and public. Science Communication, 46(6), 687–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470241252160
  10. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam (Coordinator). (2020–2022). Trustworthy, Reliable and Engaging Scientific Communication Approaches (Grant agreement ID 872855) [Grant]. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.3030/872855
  11. Fähnrich, Birte. (2021). Conceptualizing science communication in flux—A framework for analyzing science communication in a digital media environment. Journal of Science Communication, 20(3), Y02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20030402
  12. Grant, Laura. (2011). Evaluating success: How to find out what worked (and what didn't). In David. J. Bennett & Richard C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful science communication: Telling it like it is (pp. 403–422). Cambridge University Press.
  13. Hutchins, Jessica A. (2020). Tailoring scientific communications for audience and research narrative. Current Protocols: Essential Laboratory Techniques, 20(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpet.40
  14. Kjærgaard, Rikke Schmidt. (2011). Things to see and do: How scientific images work. In David. J. Bennett & Richard C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful science communication: Telling it like it is (pp. 332–354). Cambridge University Press.
  15. Kurzgesagt — In a Nutshell. (2021, December 7). ...And we'll do it again [Video file]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFqn3uy238E
  16. Len-Ríos, María E., Bhandari, Manu, & Medvedeva, Yulia S. (2014). Deliberation of the scientific evidence for breastfeeding: Online comments as social representations. Science Communication, 36(6), 778–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014556195
  17. Longnecker, Nancy. (2023). Good science communication considers the audience. In Susan Rowland & Louise Kuchel (Eds.), Teaching science students to communicate: A practical guide (pp. 21–30). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91628-2_3
  18. Maguire, Moira, & Delahunt, Brid. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Higher Education, 9(3), 3351–33514. https://doi.org/10.62707/aishej.v9i3.335
  19. Medvecky, Fabien, & Leach, Joan. (2019). An ethics of science communication. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32116-1
  20. Moy, Patricia, Tewksbury, David, & Rinke, Eike Mark. (2016). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing. In Klaus Bruhn Jensen, Eric W. Rothenbuhler, Jefferson D. Pooley, & Robert T. Craig (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect266
  21. Muñoz Morcillo, Jesús, Czurda, Klemens, & Robertson-von Trotha, Caroline Y. (2016). Typologies of the popular science web video. Journal of Science Communication, 15(4), A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15040202
  22. Nordmann, Alfred. (2011). The ethos of science vs. ethics of science communication: On deficit and surplus models of science–society interaction. In David J. Bennett & Richard C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful science communication: Telling it like it is (pp. 101–117). Cambridge University Press.
  23. Pridmore, Jason H., & Tulin, Marina. (2021). Communicating trustworthy information in the digital world [MOOC]. Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/learn/communicating-trustworthy-information-in-the-digital-world
  24. Rogers, Richard. (2019). Doing digital methods. Sage.
  25. TRESCA. (n.d.). trescaproject.eu—Information you an trust. Retrieved April, 23, 2025 from https://trescaproject.eu/
  26. Tydén, Thomas. (1996). The contribution of longitudinal studies for understanding science communication and research utilization. Science Communication, 18(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547096018001002
  27. van der Sanden, Maarten C. A., & Osseweijer, Patricia. (2011). Effectively embedding corporate science communication in academia; a second paradigm shift? In David J. Bennett & Richard C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful science communication: Telling it like it is (pp. 423–442). Cambridge University Press.
  28. van der Schelde, Asher, Tulin, Marina, & Lee, Jay. (2021). White paper on best practices for producing science communication videos. European Commission - TRESCA. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5d8bcce87&appId=PPGMS
  29. Velho, Raphaela Martins, Mendes, Amanda Merian Freitas, & Azevedo, Caio Lucidius Naberezny. (2020). Communicating science with YouTube videos: How nine factors relate to and affect video views. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.567606
  30. Welbourne, Dustin J., & Grant, Will J. (2015). Science communication on YouTube: Factors that affect channel and video popularity. Public Understanding of Science, 25(6), 706–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515572068