This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. Research limitations/implications -The authors only examined newspapers, the reporting in other media may be different. Practical implications -The media reporting of food poverty and the use of food banks has the potential to influence public perceptions and policy. Originality/value -This is the first study to look at how food banks are reported by the media.

No abstract

European science communication project QUEST surveyed and reviewed different aspects of European science communication, including science journalism, teaching and training in science communication, social media activity, and science in museums. This article draws together themes that collectively emerge from this research to present an overview of key issues in science communication across Europe. We discuss four central dynamics — fragmentation within research and practice; a landscape in transition; the importance of format and context; and the dominance of critical and dialogic approaches as best practice — and illustrate these with empirical material from across our datasets. In closing we reflect upon the implications of this summary of European science communication.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore how Brexit-related food issues are being presented in the UK print media.Design/methodology/approachUsing the news database Nexis UK, relevant articles were identified based on key search terms, “Brexit” and “Food” or “Farm!” or “Agriculture!”. The search criteria were set to include articles with three or more mentions of these terms. The search period was 6 April to 5 July 2018.FindingsThe quality newspaper genre, and remain-supporting newspaper, The Guardian, in particular, dominated food Brexit coverage. In total, 17 distinct food Brexit issues were covered, with food security and subsidies receiving the most coverage in leave-supporting publications and agriculture, trade and labour receiving the most coverage in remain-supporting publications. Dominant narratives and frames can be identified in the reporting, illustrating newspapers' tendency to promote certain viewpoints in support of their own standpoint on Brexit. In all publication types, political voices feature far more prominently than any other stakeholder group, highlighting the significant potential for this group to influence public opinion and the post-Brexit food policy agenda.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors only examined newspapers over a limited period. Reporting in other media and at different stages in the Brexit negotiation process may differ.Practical implicationsMedia reporting on food Brexit issues has the potential to influence post-Brexit food policy.Originality/valueThis is the first study to look at reporting on food Brexit in the UK media.

Journalists need to become more effective at communicating science and countering post-truth activities that seek to undermine scientific processes and evidence. Digital support for journalists when investigating and writing about sciencerelated topics is one means of improving this science communication. However, little bespoke digital support is available. This paper reports the research and development of one new form of such digital support. During a participatory design process, experienced science journalists and other professionals were interviewed about their challenges experienced and understanding of good practices in science journalism. These challenges and good practices informed the development of a prototype of a new form of digital tool that was evaluated by journalists without specialist science training. A new version of the prototype, called INQUEST, was implemented to automate some parts of good practices in order to augment journalists' capabilities. These practices included the retrieval of science information from diverse sources, targeting different science audiences, and providing different forms of guidance for explaining science to the target audience. This prototype is presented, and an early evaluation of it is reported.