A bibliometric overview of science communication research in STEM education

Alfia M. Ishmuradova 1 * , Marina N. Svintsova 2, Nataliia A. Kondakchian 3, Natalia A. Zaitseva 4, Natalia L. Sokolova 5, Elmira R. Khairullina 6
More Detail
1 Department of Foreign Languages, Kazan (Volga region) Federal University, Kazan, RUSSIA
2 Department of Humanities, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, RUSSIA
3 Institute of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, RUSSIA
4 Department of Hospitality, Tourism and Sports Industry, Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Moscow, RUSSIA
5 Institute of Foreign Languages, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, RUSSIA
6 Institute of Light Industry, Fashion, and Design, Kazan National Research Technological University, Kazan, RUSSIA
* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, Volume 13, Issue 4, Article No: e202341. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/13415
OPEN ACCESS   1224 Views   1057 Downloads   Published online: 19 Jun 2023
Download Full Text (PDF)


Science communication has recently gained importance in many countries worldwide. This study conducted a bibliometric analysis to evaluate the scientific output of science communication in STEM education in the SCOPUS database for 2000-2022. For this purpose, the published studies on science communication were analyzed bibliometrically, and the trend of the last 22 years was shown. The database SCOPUS was used for data collection. The studies were analyzed under the following subheadings: Number of publications per year, type of publications, the language of publications, citation analysis, country collaborations, common citation networks, and conceptual trends. The results showed that the number of articles increased between 2019 and 2022. The United States and the United Kingdom had the most publications. The results also showed that the countries with the most collaboration in co-authored studies were Germany, the United States, Finland, Australia, and the Netherlands. Most published authors were mainly from the United States and Australia. The results of peer-reviewed journals demonstrated that the highest bibliographic link strengths included the International Journal of Science Education-Part B, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Science Communication, Public Understanding of Science, and Journal of Science Communication. In addition, the most frequently used keywords were science communication, science education, education, human, communication, public understanding of science, and stem. Educational implications are drawn in the conclusion.


Ishmuradova, A. M., Svintsova, M. N., Kondakchian, N. A., Zaitseva, N. A., Sokolova, N. L., & Khairullina, E. R. (2023). A bibliometric overview of science communication research in STEM education. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 13(4), e202341. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/13415


  • Al-Momani, M. O. (2021). Vocational-education students' attitudes towards their academic specialization in Jordan. Education and Self Development, 16(3), 10-24. https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.16.3.03
  • Aparicio, G., Iturralde, T., & Maseda, A. (2021). A holistic bibliometric overview of the student engagement research field. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(4), 540-557. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2020.1795092
  • Badru, A. K., & Owodunni, S. A. (2021). Influence of mathematical language ability and parental supports on students’ academic achievement in secondary school sciences (Physics, chemistry and biology) in Ogun state, Nigeria. Education and Self Development, 16(1), 10-20. https://doi.org/10.26907/esd16.1.03
  • Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., & Storksdieck, M. (2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 199-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21186
  • Bickford, D., Posa, M. R. C., Qie, L., Campos-Arceiz, A., & Kudavidanage, E. P. (2012). Science communication for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 151(1), 74-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.0
  • Chen, D., Guo, Y., Wang, C., Xu, Y., & Zhang, H. (2022). Dispersion and disparity: Bibliometric and visualized analysis of research on climate change science communication. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 15766. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315766
  • Donohue, K., VanDenburgh, K., Reck, C., & Buck, G. (2021). Integrating science communication into a large STEM classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 51(2), 46-50.
  • Feinstein, N. W. (2015). Education, communication, and science in the public sphere. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 145-163. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21192
  • Hasanah, U. (2020). Key definitions of STEM education: Literature review. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 16(3), e2217. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/8336
  • Hu, S., Li, Z., Zhang, J., & Zhu, J. (2018). Engaging scientists in science communication: The effect of social proof and meaning. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 1044-1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.210
  • Karampelas, K. (2023). Examining the relationship between TPACK and STEAM through a bibliometric study. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 488-498. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/12981
  • Kessler, S. H., Fähnrich, B., & Schäfer, M. S. (2019). Science communication research in the German-speaking countries: A content analysis of conference abstracts. Studies in Communication Sciences, 19(2), 243-251. https://doi.org/10.24434/j.scoms.2019.02.012
  • Kohen, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2019). Toward narrowing the gap between science communication and science education disciplines. Review of Education, 7(3), 525-566. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3136
  • Kushairi, N., Ahmi, A. (2021). Flipped classroom in the second decade of the millenia: A bibliometrics analysis with Lotka’s law. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 4401-4431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10457-8
  • Leydesdorff, L., & Hellsten, I. (2005). Metaphors and diaphorases in science communication. Science Communication, 27(1), 64–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005278346
  • Malik, D., Singh, P., & Dhiman, D. (2022). Science communication in India: Current trends and future vision. Science Communication in India: Current Trends and Future Vision. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4199480
  • Marín-Marín, J.-A., López-Belmonte, J., Fernández-Campoy, J.-M., & Romero-Rodríguez, J.-M. (2019). Big data in education. A bibliometric review. Social Sciences, 8(8), 223. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8080223
  • Matta, G. (2020). Science communication as a preventative tool in the COVID-19 pandemic. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00645-1
  • Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Kuchel, L. (2017). Core skills for effective science communication: A teaching resource for undergraduate science education. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(2), 181-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1113573
  • Ninkov, A., Frank, J. R., & Maggio, L. A. (2022). Bibliometrics: Methods for studying academic publishing. Perspectives on Medical Education, 11, 173-176 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-021-00695-4
  • Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas‐about‐science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105
  • Panferov, V. N., Miklyaeva, A. V., & Bezgodova, S. A. (2022). Classification of sciences and systematization of knowledge for the general and professional integrative education content design. Education and Self Development, 17(2), 219-230. https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.17.2.17
  • Phuong, N. L., Hien, L. T. T., Linh, N. Q., Thao, T. T. P., Pham, H.-H. T., Giang, N. T., & Thuy, V. T. (2023). Implementation of STEM education: A bibliometrics analysis from case study research in Scopus database. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(6), em2278. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13216
  • Rauchfleisch, A., & Schäfer, M. S. (2018). Structure and development of science communication research: co-citation analysis of a developing field. JCOM, 17(03), A07. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17030207
  • Schäfer, M. S. (2009). From public understanding to public engagement: A comparison of mass media coverage on different science issues. Science Communication, 30(4), 475-505. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008326943
  • Scheufele, D. A. (2022). Thirty years of science–society interfaces: What’s next? Public Understanding of Science, 31(3), 297-304. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221075947
  • Shivni, R., Cline, C., Newport, M., Yuan, S., & Bergan-Roller, H. E. (2021). Establishing a baseline of science communication skills in an undergraduate environmental science course. International Journal of STEM Education, 8, 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00304-0
  • Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400-414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749
  • Sinai, S., Caffery, L., & Cosby, A. (2022). The culture of science communication in rural and regional Australia: The role of awe and wonder. JCOM, 21(6), 1. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.21060801
  • Sugimoto, C. R., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Scholars on soap boxes: Science communication and dissemination in TED videos. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(4), 663-674. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22764
  • Suprapto, N., Ku, C. H., & Chang, T. S. (2021). “Unless you can explain”: Voices of graduate students and their professor regarding the importance of science communication course. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 18(1), 32-53. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2021.51
  • Tatalovic, M. (2009). Science comics as tools for science education and communication: A brief, exploratory study. Journal of Science Communication, 8(4), A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.08040202
  • van Dijk, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086-1100. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20458
  • Wang, P., Zhu, F., Song, H., & Hou, J. (2018). A Bibliometric Retrospective of the journal EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education between 2012 and 2017. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(3), 765-775. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80911
  • Wu, L. Y., Wu, S. P., & Chang, C. Y. (2019). Merging science education into communication: Developing and validating a scale for science edu-communication utilizing awareness, enjoyment, interest, opinion formation, and understanding dimensions (SEC-AEIOU). Sustainability, 11(17), 4551. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174551