Social Media

Celebrating Earth Science Week!

Celebrating Earth Science Week!

For those not so familiar with the Earth sciences, geosciences and all its subdisciplines might be shrouded in mystery:  boring, unfathomable, out of reach and with little relevance to everyday life. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Earth Science Week, an international annual celebration founded by the American Geosciences Institute in 1998, aims to change the public’s perception of the geosciences.  Since 2011, the London Geological Society also hosts a range of events and activities to raise awareness and better understanding of the Earth sciences.

In 2016, Earth Science Week takes place between 8 and16 October. For the first time, the EGU will run events to mark the special date, all of which we invite you to take part in!

Earth Science Week Photo Competition

From Wednesday 5th to Friday 14th October submit an original photo on any broad theme related to the Earth, planetary and space sciences to our open access image repository, Imaggeo.

For your image to be included in the competition be sure to include the tag #EarthSciWeek when prompted during the upload.

Upon the submission period closing, all entered images will be published to the EGU’s Facebook page. The photograph with most likes, as chosen by the public, will be crowned the competition winner.

The winner will get one free book of their choice from the EGU library and a pack of EGU goodies! We’ll also feature the top five most popular entries on our Instagram.

I’m a geoscientist – Ask me Anything: Live Twitter Q&As

Have you always wanted to know how glaciers move and carve out unbelievable landscapes? How about which emissions cause the most pollution? What are the benefits of publishing in an open access journal vs. a pay-walled publication? If politicians make all the decisions, how can we get them to take scientists more seriously?

If you’ve ever asked yourself these questions, stay tuned or, better still, take part in our daily Earth Science Week live #EGUchat with an EGU member on Twitter. Starting on Monday, every lunchtime, you’ll have the opportunity to put your questions to a range of scientists and EGU experts and discuss a variety of subjects.

Our very own Sarah Connors (@connors SL), the EGU’s Policy Fellow, will kick off a week, of what we hope will be fruitful discussions, by taking questions on all things science policy. Come Tuesday Emma Smith (@emma_c_smith) and Nanna Karlsson (@icymatters), Cryosphere Division Blog editors, will team up to shed light on the processes which operate in the iciest places on the planet.

Wednesday brings editor of the EGU’s open access journal Earth Surface Dynamics (ESurf) and Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Hull, Tom Coulthard (@Tom_Coulthard), who will shed light on the processes which shape our planet and the trials and tribulations of getting published.

If you are interested in natural hazards, how we mitigate, manage them and how they impact on our daily lives, then tune in to the chat on Thursday, where Giorgio Boni (@EguNHpresident), President of the Natural Hazards Division will be answering all your questions!

For the final chat of the week, we bring you Michelle Cain (@civiltalker), an atmospheric scientist and former Atmospheric Division Early Career Scientist Representative. Michelle will be taking questions on gaseous emissions and topics related to the Earth’s atmosphere.

Joining the conversation couldn’t be easier! To put your questions to our experts follow the hashtag #EGUchat on Twitter. Not on twitter or aren’t available during the chats? Not to worry, send us your questions in the comments below or via Twitter, Facebook or Instagram: we’ll ask the experts on your behalf.earth_sci_week_ama_twitter-01


This calls for a celebration: GeoLog’s 1000 post!

This calls for a celebration: GeoLog’s 1000 post!

As far as blogging milestones go, today is pretty special. This is GeoLog’s 1000 post!

Since the EGU’s official blog launched back in March 2010 (that’s right, there’s over 6 years of back catalogue for you to enjoy!), we’ve shared posts about research spanning almost every discipline in the Earth sciences; highlighted member’s adventures in the field and showcased the work of outstanding early career scientist. We’ve not shied away from contentious topics and shone a light on some of the most fascinating processes which shape our planet, as well as bringing you the latest from our annual General Assembly.

To celebrate, we’ve come up with a list of some posts which highlight the diversity of content published in the blog over the past six and a half years. Because selecting the best of the blog would be too hard a task, we’ve chosen to feature some of the Executive Office’s favourite posts, as well as some of the most viewed posts since we started recording statistics about the blog back in 2012.

Bárbara Ferreira, the EGU’s Media and Communications Manager says “It’s hard to pick your favourites from amongst 1000 blog posts, published over 6.5 years of the EGU’s blog existence, so I will highlight a few ‘firsts’ instead.”

Imaggeo on Mondays is the longest running regular column on the blog, having started in February 2011. Weekly, we highlight a photo from the EGU’s open-access image repository, Imaggeo.

“The very first featured image was an asphalt volcano from the Gulf of Mexico,” explains Bárbara.

Not surprisingly, one of the most popular posts in GeoLog’s history is also an Imaggeo on Mondays post. Could it be any other way when the April 2013 post highlighted one of the most emblematic geological features in the world? Sarah Connors, the EGU’s Policy Fellow is also a fan of Imaggeo on Mondays.

Left: Asphalt volcano off the Gulf of Mexico . Credit: Marum. Right: href=""> Grand Prismatic spring . Credit: David Mencin (both images distributed via

Left: Asphalt volcano off the Gulf of Mexico . Credit: Marum. Right: Grand Prismatic spring . Credit: David Mencin (both images distributed via

“It gives me the opportunity to learn facts about research areas that differ from my own background (atmospheric chemistry). I particularly liked ‘A rolling stone gathers no moss’ which taught me about large shifting landmasses and what effects this can have on the surrounding rock (it can create swirls of different rock types),” explains Sarah.

Geosciences Columns cover recent research in the Earth, planetary and space sciences. Usually, but not always, the research featured is published in one of our open access journals, and presented in a language that is accessible to all. November 2011 was the birth-month of this popular series and featured research about how the Vikings used a transparent variety of calcite, called Iceland spar, to navigate.

“Managing the EGU’s social media presence is one of my [Laura Roberts, EGU Communications Officer] tasks, so I’m always interested in learning what applications social media might have in the context of the Earth sciences. A Geosciences Column published back in February 2013 is one of my favourites as it showcases how social networks to respond to earthquakes.”

Fast forward to July 2012 and another of our long-established columns got underway: GeoTalk, featuring a short Q&A with a geoscientist, often an early career scientist (ECS).

“We started with an interview with Guillermo Rein about his research on the largest fires on Earth and how they contribute to greenhouse gas emissions,” says Bárbara, and adds “all three columns [GeoTalk, Geosciences Columns and Imaggeo on Mondays] are ongoing to this day.”

More recently, Sarah (Policy Fellow) started our newest column: GeoPolicy, which focuses on informing the scientific community on European policy, the scientists contributing to this process, and how other researchers could play a role in influencing policy making.

“So far, it’s been a great experience and I’ve got to write about some interesting topics. I think my favourite post is the ‘How to communicate science to policy officials – tips and tricks from the experts’, which covers a science policy session at the EGU General Assembly 2016. The post summarises key communication tips for researchers wanting to engage with policy officials,” describes Sarah.

While preparing this post we realised our readers enjoy discovering more about subjects which are timely and ‘hot’ at the time of publication. A post about Iceland’s Bárðarbunga-Holuhraun and its remarkable volcanic eruption, which went live not long after the eruption and showcased new research presented at our General Assembly, is among the most popular on the blog. Tapping into slightly niche subjects also proved a hit among the GeoLog audience. Who knew a story about spitfires and geophysical archaeology in Burma would be our most read post ever?

GeoLog is also a place to find resources on all things related to career, science communication, academic writing and personal development. We’ve featured how-to-guides on how to apply for research grants, prepare for your next interview and most recently how to pitch your research to a journalist. Among the most popular posts on the blog is one packed with tips and tricks on how to prepare THE best job application.

It wouldn’t be fair to celebrate this special occasion without sending a big thank you to all our guest authors, who over the past six and a bit years have contributed a range of informative, entertaining and insightful posts. We always welcome guest contributions, so if you would like to submit a post, please do get in touch!

Last, but absolutely not least, a big thank you to all our readers! We hope you continue to enjoy GeoLog. Here is to the next 1000 posts!

Stop the press!: How to pitch your research to a journalist or editor

Stop the press!: How to pitch your research to a journalist or editor

Why does some research make it into the main stream media, while so many stories languish in the expanse between the lab bench and research papers? The answer isn’t straightforward. A variety of factors come into play: is the research newsworthy; is it timely; does it represent a ground-breaking discovery; or is it of human and societal interest?

Newsworthiness isn’t the be all and end all. Sometimes, you’ve got to be proactive about getting your research noticed. If you think your work features a story worth telling, it might be time to dare and pitch it to a journalist or editor.

Most researchers aren’t familiar with how the media works, let alone how to contact and persuade a journalist that their research is worthy of a news item. At this year’s General Assembly we hosted a short course on this very topic. It featured a panel of science journalists and a scientist with media experience who shared their views on what makes research newsworthy and how to get your work noticed. Here, we share a few highlights from that session.

Is my research newsworthy?

While what we said in the introduction stands, i.e. newsworthiness is not the be all and end all, the fact remains: there has to be something about your research which makes it interesting to the general public and worth reporting about for a journalist.

Ground-breaking findings instantly tick the box, but the media will also be interested in results which have a big impact on people’s daily lives, relate to current events and/or include striking images or videos (among others). Scientist-turned-journalist Julia Rosen has a comprehensive list of what does (and doesn’t) make research newsworthy. When trying to decide whether your research fits the bill, you might also find this EGU guide useful.

The process of doing science is often the key to a great story but it is often overlooked.

“Don’t take your methods for granted,” says freelance journalist Megan Gannon, “fieldwork and lab work is inherently fascinating to people who have never done that.”

This GeoLog story, featuring PhD student Thomas Clements and his study of decaying fish guts, livers and gills, to understand how organisms become fossils, is a perfect example. Thomas presented new results at a press conference at the 2016 General Assembly, but his research methodology was just as fascinating as his data and became the focal point of the story.

The impostor syndrome

Even if a scientist knows (or has an inkling that) their work is newsworthy they’ll likely be faced with an age-old fear, rife among academics: am I smart or talented or deserving or experienced (insert an alternative synonym of your choice here) enough to put my work forward to a journalist? Is the work itself good enough?

The fear of being found out: is my work good enough; should I really be putting it out there? Credit: modified from original by Rhian Meara

The fear of being found out: is my work good enough; should I really be putting it out there? Credit: modified from original by Rhian Meara

Rhian Meara, a lecturer in geography and geology at Swansea University, recognises that this is a common feeling that she’s experienced many a times, both on location filming on TV and when asked to take part in the short course, but one which shouldn’t hold you back. As an expert in your area you are best placed to tell the story of your findings and work.

Overcome that fear by playing to your strengths and use them to your advantage. For example, are you fluent in a language other than English? This skill might mean you could become the go-to-scientist for coverage of Earth science related stories in your local area and/or language.

Working with the media

Convinced that your research is newsworthy and armed with the courage to take the next step? Before you do, there are a few, final, things to consider.

When approaching a journalist or editor about your work, “you need to pitch a story, not a topic: give journalists stories and context. Getting news across to readers requires giving it a deeper meaning and setting it in the big picture,” Megan points out.

Simply laying out the facts won’t cut it. You need to make your research come to life so it gets noticed.

There is also a reality you need to reconcile if you are planning on pitching your research to the media. Journalists serve their readers, not the scientists whose story they are telling.

“Even if scientists want to promote their research by reaching out to journalists, they should be aware that our role is not to promote their agenda, but to inform the public in an objective manner,” explains Megan.

But that doesn’t mean they will set-out to misrepresent your work either. Be patient with journalists if they ask questions, sometimes repeatedly, about your research. They may not be familiar with the subject, but importantly, they are trying to capture the essence of the science and make it accessible to a broad audience. To do this, they need to ask questions; sometimes, lots of them.

Communication issues

Precisely because the media needs to serve their readers and viewers, there is no doubt that there might be a clash when it comes to reporting particular findings. Being aware of it is important, but there are ways you can prepare in advance to minimise misunderstandings.

“Be careful of promoting unpublished results,” warns Andrew Revkin, a science and environmental writer for The New York Times (among others).

Your unpublished study has the potential to attract a lot of media attention, but what happens if the paper requires major revision, or worse, isn’t published?

The use of jargon can also lead to misinterpretation – “words that mean something to scientists might mean something entirely different to the public and reporters,” Andrew points out.

The obvious ones, say for instance (climate) model vs. (fashion) model, can usually be easily clarified. It’s the more subtle ones which present the biggest challenge: uncertainty, risk.

A challenge for scientists, and science journalists, Revkin said, is conveying that, in scientific analysis, bounded uncertainty is a form of knowledge. For more ideas, read a lecture he gave in 2013 in Tokyo: Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities in the New Communication Climate.

Communicating the nuances of what is meant by such terms is difficult; it’s best to consult a media expert for alternatives rather than risk amplifying misunderstanding.

A little help

Still nervous about the process of pitching your research to a journalist or editor?

Rhian Meara during her presentation at the EGU 2016 short course

Rhian Meara during her presentation at the EGU 2016 short course. Credit: Andrew Revkin

Scientists needn’t embark on the venture on their own. In all likelihood your research institute or university will have a press officer: someone who has expertise in dealing with the media, pitching stories to journalists, and knows what makes for newsworthy research. Failing that, approach your funders who will likely have a media relations team.

If you think your research has the potential to be newsworthy, get in touch with them! They’ll be able to help you find out whether indeed your research could interest journalists, and with all the steps we touch upon in this post and more!

More and more, the ability to communicate science is becoming a priority for researchers. If this is the case for you too, but you aren’t sure how to get started, there are a number of resources and courses which can help you develop your media skills. This post, in the blog Geology Jenga, has a list of some courses and resources available.

By Laura Roberts, EGU Communications Officer (with thanks to Megan Gannon, Rhian Meara, Andrew Revkin and Christina Reed)

This blog posts based on the presentations by Megan Gannon, Rhian Meara and Andrew Revkin at the ‘Short Course: How to pitch your research to a journalist or editor (SC45)’ which took place at the 2016 EGU General Assembly in Vienna and was moderated by Christina Reed. The full presentations can be accessed here.

GeoSciences Column: Improving together – science writing and football

GeoSciences Column: Improving together – science writing and football

Writing is something that those pursuing a career in academia are expected to be good at. It is a requirement of the job, yet it is a skill few get any formal training in and simply rely on the old saying that practice makes perfect. But what if there is another way? Mathew Stiller-Reeve is a co-founder of ClimateSnack, a writing group organization, which aims to tackle the problem. In today’s post Mathew considers how the workings of a football team might reflect the successes of the writing groups that started in the ClimateSnack project.

The premise behind the ClimateSnack project is simple: We need to improve our writing in science. But many young researchers do not have access to good training initiatives, especially not continuous ones. So, maybe we should just mobilize ourselves; we can mobilize ourselves by starting writing groups and working together to improve. In ClimateSnack, early career scientists (ECS) start writing groups at their home institute. Participants write short popular science articles (usually 400-500 words), read them aloud, get feedback, and publish online. Several ClimateSnack writing groups sprouted up all over the world, however, only a few truly blossomed. What made some groups work and some not? We analyzed the answer to this question in our new paper. The style of a peer-review paper didn’t allow us to make fancy, lengthy analogies. But on GeoLog, I feel safe using football as an analogy to explain the workings of a writing group, and maybe infuse some of my own personal opinions too.

Football is a team sport, but you can play football completely alone and still become an expert. You can see this when you watch football freestylers (like Indi Cowie in the video) do their incredible tricks. Most of these tricksters likely play football with a whole team, but they don’t have to. The same applies to science writing and communication. You can become an expert in these skills by yourself, and some people prefer this. But for ECS’s who like to work together, ClimateSnack would give them the opportunity to improve as part of a team: a writing group.

But what was needed for the teams to work successfully? And what did we learn from the teams that disbanded after a few training sessions?

Successful football teams have good leadership, and in particular good captains. Good captains bring out the best in their players, encourage them when things get hard and manage conflict. These elements were reflected in the ClimateSnack writing groups. The strong leaders guided the groups and encouraged participants to contribute in sensitive ways. However, strong leaders don’t stick around forever. Just as other football clubs often buy captains, writing group leaders also moved on; they finished PhDs and got jobs far, far away. New captains needed to be found, but this was always a challenge.

Can the workings of a football team reflect the successes of the writing groups that started in the ClimateSnack project? Credit: Syaza , distributed via gify.

Can the workings of a football team reflect the successes of the writing groups that started in the ClimateSnack project? Credit: Syaza , distributed via gify.

I am absolutely not saying that the leaders of the disbanded other groups were poor captains! Even a potentially good captain cannot lead a team if he/she doesn’t know the rules of the game. If the rules are not clear then the whole team cannot play properly together. They need to know where the goal is; they need to understand the game’s objectives. And this is where the ClimateSnack management team (where I am most to blame!) was shortsighted. We failed to properly communicate the objectives and aims of a ClimateSnack writing group and the writing process we suggested.

Even if a football team knows the rules and has a good captain, they won’t get far if morale is low, or if the players haven’t got time to train or turn up for matches. We noticed that a lot of the motivation within writing groups was linked to socializing. Just as some amateur football teams might go to the pub after training, one successful writing group planned their meetings just before the Department coffee break so everyone could socialize after the hard work was done.

What other elements need to be in place for a football team to work?

The right number of players is an absolute necessity. Most people have seen how a football team struggles after a couple of players have been sent off. You may have also heard about players going to other clubs if they don’t get to play enough matches. The ClimateSnack group meetings also faced challenges with the number of participants. One group had so many participants to start with that it became difficult to manage. It is difficult for everyone to get something out of a peer feedback discussion if too many are involved.  In this instance, participants lost interest and numbers decreased steadily and finally to a level where too few attended and the group disbanded. In our Bergen group, we always find that the best discussions happen with 4-6 people at the meetings. If we get far more than this in the future, then we will likely split into smaller discussion groups which work more effectively.

Effective writing groups demand some kind of time commitment from the participants. Good writing requires practice, just like football. Football players often train several times a week. With ClimateSnack, we did not have the luxury of asking the members for this level of commitment. Students are already under pressure from a variety of different sources. They need to complete mandatory courses, collect data, attend conferences, and work as teaching assistants. People who play football have a passion for the game and make time for it. Unfortunately, few young researchers have a passion for writing (cards on the table: I was exactly the same. It took a lot of time before I started enjoying writing). Therefore, something voluntary like a writing group will often fall by the wayside when to-do lists are being compiled.

A football team celebrates together after scoring a goal!

A football team celebrates together after scoring a goal! ( Lewes Ladies 2 BHA 1 4 May 2014. 645 , credit: James Boyes distributed via a href=””> flickr).

Some ClimateSnack teams started scoring goals! ClimateSnack participants have published over 100 articles online, some of which articles have appeared in newspapers here in Norway. Many participants feel that their writing has improved. Some participants have even started receiving better peer reviews for their scientific publications. Other participants have also used their new network to organize science communication workshops. Even if many writing groups didn’t find a footing, for some people the concept worked really well. And many people have made good friends!

Just like with many football teams, they are more likely to score more goals if they have generous sponsors. Football clubs need to buy kits, pay for pitch maintenance and travel to play other teams. A writing group project like ClimateSnack ideally needs some funding to let new ideas flourish and allow different groups to interact and learn from each other. The ClimateSnack founders had big ambitions to create an international online community where ECS would interact and peer-review each other’s articles across borders. We secured some funding to update the website, but never to implement the kind of things needed to properly promote an international community.

Despite the challanges we encountered, we have seen that writing groups can be a really effective way to learn writing skills together (like ours in Bergen in the photo). Maybe they are so effective that universities should consider implementing them in curricula for all students at all levels. With this in mind, I’ll indulge with a final football-related analogy. When I was a child, we had to play football at school. I didn’t like it! However, now I appreciate that I got fit and healthier, and I learned skills that I could apply to other sports in the process. You see the link to learning basic writing skills?

Indeed, if you think about it, I could have applied the football team analogy to any aspect of research education: We can learn anything alone, but it can be more enjoyable and rewarding if we learn together. However, I think the analogy works well with communication. After all, this is the part of the research process where we really have to put ourselves out there, we have to receive feedback, debate our results, and defend our conclusions, often in open forums. These are all elements at the forefront of writing group dynamics.

Read more about the highs and lows of our ClimateSnack project in our paper in the recent HESS/NHESS special issue on Effective Science Communication and Education in Hydrology and Natural Hazards.

By Mathew Stiller-Reeve, co-founder of ClimateSnack and researcher at Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Bergen, Norway


Stiller-Reeve, M. A., Heuzé, C., Ball, W. T., White, R. H., Messori, G., van der Wiel, K., Medhaug, I., Eckes, A. H., O’Callaghan, A., Newland, M. J., Williams, S. R., Kasoar, M., Wittmeier, H. E., and Kumer, V.: Improving together: better science writing through peer learning, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2965-2973, doi:10.5194/hess-20-2965-2016, 2016.


Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: