pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.13742 · v3 · pith:CG5T33YRnew · submitted 2025-09-17 · 💻 cs.HC

Spatial Balancing: Harnessing Spatial Reasoning to Balance Scientific Exposition and Narrative Engagement in LLM-assisted Science Communication Writing

Kexue Fu , Jiaye Leng , Yawen Zhang , Jingfei Huang , Yihang Zuo , Runze Cai , Zijian Ding , Ray LC
show 2 more authors
Shengdong Zhao Qinyuan Lei
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 22:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords science communicationLLM-assisted writingspatial reasoninghuman-AI co-writingmetacognitive reflectionrevision strategiesnarrative engagement
0
0 comments X

The pith

SpatialBalancing visualizes revision trade-offs on a dual-axis map to help balance scientific exposition with narrative engagement in LLM-assisted writing.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The authors address the challenge of balancing scientific rigor and storytelling appeal in science communication. Formative studies revealed that creators lack structured support for iterative shifts between exposition and engagement. SpatialBalancing was developed to externalize these trade-offs spatially, allowing users to navigate and refine LLM-generated versions through spatial selections. A within-subjects study with 16 participants demonstrated gains in metacognitive reflection, flexibility, and creative exploration. This approach shows how spatial reasoning can enhance monitoring during the writing process.

Core claim

By connecting human spatial reasoning with large language models' linguistic intelligence, SpatialBalancing turns revision into spatial navigation within a dual-axis space. Users choose strategy-based labels to generate, compare, and refine text versions that balance scientific accuracy with narrative appeal. The within-subjects evaluation confirms that this fosters better metacognitive reflection and creative exploration in iterative science communication writing.

What carries the argument

Dual-axis spatial visualization of revision strategy labels that externalizes trade-offs for spatial navigation and intentional iteration.

If this is right

  • Enhanced metacognitive reflection during the revision process in science communication writing.
  • Increased flexibility when exploring different balances of exposition and engagement.
  • Greater creative exploration supported by coupling spatial and linguistic reasoning.
  • Transforms unstructured revision into structured spatial navigation for better monitoring.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar spatial externalization techniques could be tested in other writing domains involving competing priorities, such as technical documentation or creative nonfiction.
  • The system's benefits might depend on users' spatial reasoning abilities, suggesting studies on individual differences.
  • Future tools could combine this with other interaction modalities to address additional aspects of the writing workflow.

Load-bearing premise

The dual-axis spatial visualization faithfully represents the trade-offs between exposition and engagement without its own perceptual or interaction biases affecting the results.

What would settle it

Finding no improvement in metacognitive reflection or flexibility when comparing SpatialBalancing to a standard LLM chat interface in a similar study would challenge the claim that the spatial coupling is key to the benefits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.13742 by Jiaye Leng, Jingfei Huang, Kexue Fu, Qinyuan Lei, RAY LC, Runze Cai, Shengdong Zhao, Yawen Zhang, Yihang Zuo, Zijian Ding.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example Workflow of using SpatialBalancing for iterative science communication writing. A – Jenny drags her draft into the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (1) SpatialBalancing support parallel prototyping with diverse directions of LLM output; Authors can use customized edits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The SpatialBalancing interface has two main sections: a text editor on the left for placing and directly editing source text (B), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (1) Strategy Recommendation via Eight Labels: SpatialBalancing offers eight revision labels—four enhancing narrative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: SpatialBalancing backend overview. SpatialBalancing consists of two core modules: (1) The Iterative Interaction Module, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization examples of segment revisions from P11, P12, and P14. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results of the Metacognition (Q1–Q7), Control (Q8–Q10), and Autonomy (Q11–Q13) questionnaires (p < .05 marked with *; p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The results of CSI questionnaire. (∗: 𝑝 < 0.05 and ∗∗: 𝑝 < 0.01). Participants rated SpatialBalancing significantly higher in terms of "Exploration" (M = 5.13 (SpatialBalancing) vs. 3.69 (Baseline), p = .004) and "Enjoyment" (M = 5.19 vs. 4.13, p = .039) ongoing exploration. P6 noted, "These labels give me several options with different focuses simultaneously. I can choose one version to develop further an… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Each point represents one of 45 science communication texts, plotted by its average audience rating for narrative engagement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization of interaction behaviors from 16 participants across two revision directions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Functional Evaluation of SpatialBalancing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Balancing scientific exposition and narrative engagement is a central challenge in science communication. To examine how to achieve balance, we conducted a formative study with four science communicators and a literature review of science communication practices, focusing on their workflows and strategies. These insights revealed how creators iteratively shift between exposition and engagement but often lack structured support. Building on this, we developed SpatialBalancing, a co-writing system that connects human spatial reasoning with the linguistic intelligence of large language models. The system visualizes revision trade-offs in a dual-axis space, where users select strategy-based labels to generate, compare, and refine versions during the revision process. This spatial externalization transforms revision into spatial navigation, enabling intentional iterations that balance scientific rigor with narrative appeal. In a within-subjects study (N=16), SpatialBalancing enhanced metacognitive reflection, flexibility, and creative exploration, demonstrating how coupling spatial reasoning with linguistic generation fosters monitoring in iterative science communication writing.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces SpatialBalancing, a co-writing system that couples human spatial reasoning with LLM generation through a dual-axis visualization interface. Users select strategy-based labels to generate, compare, and refine text versions while navigating trade-offs between scientific exposition and narrative engagement. Insights from a formative study (N=4) and literature review motivate the design; a within-subjects evaluation (N=16) reports gains in metacognitive reflection, flexibility, and creative exploration during iterative science communication writing.

Significance. If the causal attribution holds, the work offers a concrete demonstration that spatial externalization can support monitoring and iteration in LLM-assisted creative tasks, extending HCI research on mixed-initiative writing tools. The independent user study with external participants is a positive feature that avoids circularity with prior author data.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5 Evaluation] §5 Evaluation: The within-subjects study reports directional improvements in metacognitive reflection, flexibility, and creative exploration but supplies no statistical tests, effect sizes, confidence intervals, or power analysis, leaving the strength of evidence for the central claim difficult to evaluate.
  2. [§5.2 Study Design and Results] §5.2 Study Design and Results: No control or ablation condition (e.g., text-only LLM interface or single-axis variant) is described that would isolate the contribution of the dual-axis spatial layout from interface-specific perceptual affordances such as visual salience, label placement, or forced pairwise comparison; without this, attribution of benefits specifically to spatial reasoning rather than general interaction mechanics remains untested.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Add one sentence summarizing the primary dependent measures and any qualitative analysis approach used to assess metacognitive reflection.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure 3 (interface screenshot): Clarify the exact mapping between axis endpoints and the strategy labels so readers can assess how faithfully the 2D space externalizes the exposition-engagement trade-off.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their valuable feedback. We address each of the major comments point by point below, outlining our planned revisions to the evaluation section.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§5 Evaluation] §5 Evaluation: The within-subjects study reports directional improvements in metacognitive reflection, flexibility, and creative exploration but supplies no statistical tests, effect sizes, confidence intervals, or power analysis, leaving the strength of evidence for the central claim difficult to evaluate.

    Authors: The evaluation in the manuscript is based on a mixed-methods within-subjects study emphasizing qualitative data from participant reflections and observations to capture nuanced aspects of metacognitive processes. We did not include inferential statistics in the initial submission to avoid overclaiming with a modest sample size. We agree this makes it harder to assess the evidence strength. We will revise §5 to include statistical tests on quantitative measures (e.g., ratings of flexibility and reflection), report effect sizes and confidence intervals, and discuss power considerations. This revision will be made in the next version of the manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5.2 Study Design and Results] §5.2 Study Design and Results: No control or ablation condition (e.g., text-only LLM interface or single-axis variant) is described that would isolate the contribution of the dual-axis spatial layout from interface-specific perceptual affordances such as visual salience, label placement, or forced pairwise comparison; without this, attribution of benefits specifically to spatial reasoning rather than general interaction mechanics remains untested.

    Authors: We concur that an ablation or control condition would help isolate the effects of the spatial dual-axis design. The current study compares user experiences with SpatialBalancing to their prior writing practices but does not include a separate interface variant. This design choice was made to explore the system holistically in context. We will not be able to add new empirical data for an ablation in this revision cycle. Instead, we will expand the discussion in §5.2 and the limitations section to acknowledge this gap and specify how future work could test single-axis or non-spatial variants to strengthen attribution to spatial reasoning. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical claims rest on independent user study

full rationale

The paper derives its central claims from a formative study (N=4) plus literature review motivating the SpatialBalancing system, followed by an independent within-subjects evaluation (N=16) measuring metacognitive reflection, flexibility, and creative exploration. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation load-bearing steps appear in the provided abstract or described chain. The evaluation uses external participants and is falsifiable outside any author-defined inputs, making the derivation self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

No mathematical free parameters. Relies on standard HCI assumptions that small-scale user studies can reveal meaningful interface effects and that self-reported reflection measures capture the intended benefits. The main invented entity is the SpatialBalancing spatial interface itself.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Small-N within-subjects studies provide reliable evidence of system benefits in HCI
    Invoked implicitly when interpreting the N=16 results as demonstrating enhancement.
invented entities (1)
  • SpatialBalancing dual-axis visualization interface no independent evidence
    purpose: Externalize revision trade-offs to support balanced LLM-assisted science writing
    The core contribution introduced by the paper; no independent evidence outside the described study.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5730 in / 1292 out tokens · 61931 ms · 2026-05-21T22:34:14.184438+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 104 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2018.Advertising, promotion, and other aspects of integrated marketing communications

    J Craig Andrews and Terence A Shimp. 2018.Advertising, promotion, and other aspects of integrated marketing communications. Cengage Learning

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Isabelle Augenstein. 2021. Determining the credibility of science communication.arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14473(2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Tal August, Lauren Kim, Katharina Reinecke, and Noah A Smith. 2020. Writing strategies for science communication: Data and computational analysis. InProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 5327–5344

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Besma Boubertakh. 2015. Towards Further Experimental Reproducibility: Making A Balance Between Conciseness, Precision and Comprehensiveness in Scientific Communication.Journal of Neurology and Stroke3, 1 (Oct. 2015). doi:10.15406/JNSK.2015.03.00077

    work page doi:10.15406/jnsk.2015.03.00077 2015

  5. [5]

    2006.Understanding popular science

    Peter Broks. 2006.Understanding popular science. McGraw-Hill Education (UK)

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    John Brooke et al. 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale.Usability evaluation in industry189, 194 (1996), 4–7

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    Terry W Burns, D John O’Connor, and Susan M Stocklmayer. 2003. Science communication: a contemporary definition.Public understanding of science12, 2 (2003), 183–202. Manuscript submitted to ACM 24 Kexue FU, Jiaye Leng, Yawen Zhang, Jingfei Huang, Yihang Zuo, Runze Cai, Zijian Ding, Ray LC, Shengdong Zhao, and Qinyuan Lei

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Rick Busselle and Helena Bilandzic. 2009. Measuring narrative engagement.Media psychology12, 4 (2009), 321–347

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    Rocco Caferra, Giuseppe Di Liddo, Andrea Morone, and David Stadelmann. 2025. The media morphosis of science communication during crises. Scientific Reports15, 1 (2025), 5506

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Stuart K Card, Jock D Mackinlay, and George G Robertson. 1991. A morphological analysis of the design space of input devices.ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS)9, 2 (1991), 99–122

    work page 1991

  11. [11]

    Jin Chen, Zheng Liu, Xu Huang, Chenwang Wu, Qi Liu, Gangwei Jiang, Yuanhao Pu, Yuxuan Lei, Xiaolong Chen, Xingmei Wang, et al. 2024. When large language models meet personalization: Perspectives of challenges and opportunities.World Wide Web27, 4 (2024), 42

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Erin Cherry and Celine Latulipe. 2014. Quantifying the creativity support of digital tools through the creativity support index.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)21, 4 (2014), 1–25

    work page 2014

  13. [13]

    John Joon Young Chung, Wooseok Kim, Kang Min Yoo, Hwaran Lee, Eytan Adar, and Minsuk Chang. 2022. TaleBrush: Sketching Stories with Generative Pretrained Language Models. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–19. doi:10.1145/3491102.3501819

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3501819 2022

  14. [14]

    John Joon Young Chung and Max Kreminski. 2024. Patchview: LLM-Powered Worldbuilding with Generative Dust and Magnet Visualization. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–19

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    John Joon Young Chung, Melissa Roemmele, and Max Kreminski. 2025. Toyteller: AI-powered Visual Storytelling Through Toy-Playing with Character Symbols. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713435 arXiv:2501.13284 [cs]

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713435 2025

  16. [16]

    Michael F Dahlstrom. 2014. Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111, Supplement 4 (2014), 13614–13620

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    Dahlstrom

    Michael F. Dahlstrom. 2014. Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111, supplement_4 (2014), 13614–13620. arXiv:https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1320645111 doi:10.1073/pnas.1320645111

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1320645111 2014

  18. [18]

    Dahlstrom and Dietram A

    Michael F. Dahlstrom and Dietram A. Scheufele. 2018. (Escaping) the paradox of scientific storytelling.PLOS Biology16, 10 (10 2018), 1–4. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2006720

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2006720 2018

  19. [19]

    Andreas W Daum. 2009. Varieties of popular science and the transformations of public knowledge: some historical reflections.Isis100, 2 (2009), 319–332

    work page 2009

  20. [20]

    Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan. 2012. Self-determination theory.Handbook of theories of social psychology1, 20 (2012), 416–436

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    Zijian Ding. 2024. Towards Intent-based User Interfaces: Charting the Design Space of Intent-AI Interactions Across Task Types.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18196(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    The Diagram is like Guardrails

    Zijian Ding, Michelle Brachman, Joel Chan, and Werner Geyer. 2025. “The Diagram is like Guardrails": Structuring GenAI-assisted Hypotheses Exploration with an Interactive Shared Representation. (2025)

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Zijian Ding, Fenghai Li, Haofei Yu, and Joel Chan. [n. d.]. Towards Direct Intent Manipulation: Drag-Based Research Ideation, Evaluation and Evolution. ([n. d.])

    work page

  24. [24]

    Anne DiPardo. 1990. Narrative knowers, expository knowledge: Discourse as a dialectic.Written communication7, 1 (1990), 59–95

    work page 1990

  25. [25]

    Julie S. Downs. 2014. Prescriptive scientific narratives for communicating usable science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111, supplement_4 (Sept. 2014), 13627–13633. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317502111 Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1317502111 2014

  26. [26]

    Grant Eckstein, Jessica Chariton, and Robb Mark McCollum. 2011. Multi-draft composing: An iterative model for academic argument writing. Journal of English for academic purposes10, 3 (2011), 162–172

    work page 2011

  27. [27]

    Lee Ellis. 2022. Improving Scientific Communication by Altering Citation and Referencing Methods.Journal of Social Science Studies9, 1 (2022), 1–1. doi:10.5296/jsss.v9i1.19548

    work page doi:10.5296/jsss.v9i1.19548 2022

  28. [28]

    Alex Endert, Patrick Fiaux, and Chris North. 2012. Semantic Interaction for Visual Text Analytics. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 473–482. doi:10.1145/2207676.2207741

    work page doi:10.1145/2207676.2207741 2012

  29. [29]

    Wiebke Finkler and Bienvenido León-Anguiano. 2019. The power of storytelling and video: a visual rhetoric for science communication. (2019)

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    John H Flavell. 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry.American psychologist34, 10 (1979), 906

    work page 1979

  31. [31]

    Laura Fogg-Rogers, Ann Grand, and Margarida Sardo. 2015. Beyond dissemination - Science communication as impact. 14, 3 (Sept. 2015). doi:10.22323/2.14030301

    work page doi:10.22323/2.14030301 2015

  32. [32]

    Barbara L Fredrickson. 2004. The broaden–and–build theory of positive emotions.Philosophical transactions of the royal society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences359, 1449 (2004), 1367–1377

    work page 2004

  33. [33]

    Eric L Garland, Barbara Fredrickson, Ann M Kring, David P Johnson, Piper S Meyer, and David L Penn. 2010. Upward spirals of positive emotions counter downward spirals of negativity: Insights from the broaden-and-build theory and affective neuroscience on the treatment of emotion dysfunctions and deficits in psychopathology.Clinical psychology review30, 7 ...

    work page 2010

  34. [34]

    Katy Ilonka Gero and Lydia B. Chilton. 2019. Metaphoria: An Algorithmic Companion for Metaphor Creation. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Glasgow, Scotland Uk)(CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300526

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300526 2019

  35. [35]

    Katy Ilonka Gero, Vivian Liu, and Lydia Chilton. 2022. Sparks: Inspiration for Science Writing using Language Models. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Virtual Event, Australia)(DIS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1002–1019. doi:10.1145/3532106.3533533 Manuscript submitted to ACM Spatial B...

    work page doi:10.1145/3532106.3533533 2022

  36. [36]

    Katy Ilonka Gero, Vivian Liu, and Lydia Chilton. 2022. Sparks: Inspiration for science writing using language models. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 1002–1019

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Katy Ilonka Gero, Vivian Liu, Sarah Huang, Jennifer Lee, and Lydia B Chilton. 2021. What makes tweetorials tick: How experts communicate complex topics on twitter.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–26

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Manuela Glaser, Bärbel Garsoffky, and Stephan Schwan. 2009. Narrative-based learning: Possible benefits and problems. (2009)

    work page 2009

  39. [39]

    Dahlstrom

    Jean Goodwin and Michael F. Dahlstrom. 2014. Communication strategies for earning trust in climate change debates.WIREs Climate Change5, 1 (2014), 151–160. arXiv:https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wcc.262 doi:10.1002/wcc.262

    work page doi:10.1002/wcc.262 2014

  40. [40]

    Sandra G Hart. 1986. NASA task load index (TLX). (1986)

    work page 1986

  41. [41]

    Judith A Holton. 2007. The coding process and its challenges.The Sage handbook of grounded theory3 (2007), 265–289

    work page 2007

  42. [42]

    Tianle Huang and Will J. Grant. 2020. A Good Story Well Told: Storytelling Components That Impact Science Video Popularity on YouTube. Frontiers in Communication5 (Oct. 2020). doi:10.3389/fcomm.2020.581349 Publisher: Frontiers

    work page doi:10.3389/fcomm.2020.581349 2020

  43. [43]

    Tianle Huang and Will J Grant. 2020. A good story well told: Storytelling components that impact science video popularity on YouTube.Frontiers in Communication5 (2020), 86

    work page 2020

  44. [44]

    Oksana Ivchenko and Natalia Grabar. 2022. Impact of the Text Simplification on Understanding. InChallenges of Trustable AI and Added-Value on Health. IOS Press, 634–638. doi:10.3233/SHTI220546

    work page doi:10.3233/shti220546 2022

  45. [45]

    Dow, and Haijun Xia

    Peiling Jiang, Jude Rayan, Steven P. Dow, and Haijun Xia. 2023. Graphologue: Exploring Large Language Model Responses with Interactive Diagrams. doi:10.1145/3586183.3606737 arXiv:2305.11473 [cs]

    work page doi:10.1145/3586183.3606737 2023

  46. [46]

    Klemens Kappel and Sebastian Jon Holmen. 2019. Why science communication, and does it work? A taxonomy of science communication aims and a survey of the empirical evidence.Frontiers in communication4 (2019), 55

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    Jagdish Kaur. 2012. Saying it again: enhancing clarity in English as a lingua franca (ELF) talk through self-repetition.Text & Talk32, 5 (Jan. 2012), 593–613. doi:10.1515/TEXT-2012-0028

    work page doi:10.1515/text-2012-0028 2012

  48. [48]

    Martin Kerwer, Anita Chasiotis, Johannes Stricker, Armin Günther, and Tom Rosman. 2021. Straight From the Scientist’s Mouth—Plain Language Summaries Promote Laypeople’s Comprehension and Knowledge Acquisition When Reading About Individual Research Findings in Psychology. Collabra: Psychology7, 1 (02 2021), 18898. arXiv:https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/...

    work page doi:10.1525/collabra.18898 2021

  49. [49]

    Jeongyeon Kim, Sangho Suh, Lydia B Chilton, and Haijun Xia. 2023. Metaphorian: Leveraging Large Language Models to Support Extended Metaphor Creation for Science Writing. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 115–135

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    2013.Space to reason: A spatial theory of human thought

    Markus Knauff. 2013.Space to reason: A spatial theory of human thought. Mit Press

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    Laura M König, Marlene S Altenmüller, Julian Fick, Jan Crusius, Oliver Genschow, and Melanie Sauerland. 2024. How to communicate science to the public? Recommendations for effective written communication derived from a systematic review.Zeitschrift für Psychologie(2024). https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000572

    work page doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000572 2024

  52. [52]

    Christoph Kueffer and Brendon M. H. Larson. 2014. Responsible Use of Language in Scientific Writing and Science Communication.BioScience64, 8 (06 2014), 719–724. arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-pdf/64/8/719/8719054/biu084.pdf doi:10.1093/biosci/biu084

    work page doi:10.1093/biosci/biu084 2014

  53. [53]

    2013.Digital storytelling: Capturing lives, creating community

    Joe Lambert. 2013.Digital storytelling: Capturing lives, creating community. Routledge

    work page 2013

  54. [54]

    Alghamdi, Tal August, Avinash Bhat, Madiha Zahrah Choksi, Senjuti Dutta, Jin L.C

    Mina Lee, Katy Ilonka Gero, John Joon Young Chung, Simon Buckingham Shum, Vipul Raheja, Hua Shen, Subhashini Venugopalan, Thiemo Wambsganss, David Zhou, Emad A. Alghamdi, Tal August, Avinash Bhat, Madiha Zahrah Choksi, Senjuti Dutta, Jin L.C. Guo, Md Naimul Hoque, Yewon Kim, Simon Knight, Seyed Parsa Neshaei, Antonette Shibani, Disha Shrivastava, Lila Shr...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642697 2024

  55. [55]

    2019.The Political Speechwriter’s Companion: A Guide for Writers and Speakers

    Robert A Lehrman and Eric Schnure. 2019.The Political Speechwriter’s Companion: A Guide for Writers and Speakers. CQ Press

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    Marcia C Linn. 2025. Emergence and Characterization of Sex Differences in Spatial Ability: A Meta-Analysis. (2025)

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    Norma J Livo and Sandra A Rietz. 1986. Storytelling: Process and practice.(No Title)(1986)

    work page 1986

  58. [58]

    Tao Long, Katy Ilonka Gero, and Lydia B Chilton. 2024. Not Just Novelty: A Longitudinal Study on Utility and Customization of an AI Workflow. InDesigning Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, IT University of Copenhagen Denmark, 782–803. doi:10.1145/3643834.3661587

    work page doi:10.1145/3643834.3661587 2024

  59. [59]

    Tao Long, Dorothy Zhang, Grace Li, Batool Taraif, Samia Menon, Kynnedy Simone Smith, Sitong Wang, Katy Ilonka Gero, and Lydia B Chilton

    work page

  60. [60]

    Tweetorial hooks: generative AI tools to motivate science on social media.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12265(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Roger Maskill. 1988. Logical Language, Natural Strategies and the Teaching of Science.International Journal of Science Education10, 5 (1988), 485–495. doi:10.1080/0950069880100502

    work page doi:10.1080/0950069880100502 1988

  62. [62]

    Damien Masson, Zixin Zhao, and Fanny Chevalier. 2025. Visual Story-Writing: Writing by Manipulating Visual Representations of Stories. (2025)

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    Daniel Gary McDonald Daniel Gary McDonald. 2014. Narrative research in communication: key principles and issues.Review of Communication Research2 (2014), 115–132

    work page 2014

  64. [64]

    Julia Metag, Florian Wintterlin, and Kira Klinger. 2023. science communication in the digital age—new actors, environments, and practices.Media and Communication11, 1 (2023), 212–216

    work page 2023

  65. [65]

    Jesús Muñoz Morcillo, Klemens Czurda, and Caroline Trotha. 2016. Typologies of the popular science web video.Journal of Science Communication 15 (May 2016), A02. doi:10.22323/2.15040202 Manuscript submitted to ACM 26 Kexue FU, Jiaye Leng, Yawen Zhang, Jingfei Huang, Yihang Zuo, Runze Cai, Zijian Ding, Ray LC, Shengdong Zhao, and Qinyuan Lei

    work page doi:10.22323/2.15040202 2016

  66. [66]

    Nathan Ni. [n. d.]. Building a Scientific Narrative. https://www.the-scientist.com/building-a-scientific-narrative-71780

    work page

  67. [67]

    National Academies of Sciences, Medicine, Division of Behavioral, Social Sciences, Committee on the Science of Science Communication, and A Research Agenda. 2017. Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. (2017)

    work page 2017

  68. [68]

    Reham Omar, Ishika Dhall, Panos Kalnis, and Essam Mansour. 2023. A universal question-answering platform for knowledge graphs.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data1, 1 (2023), 1–25

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    Keefe, Ayan Biswas, James Ahrens, and David Rogers

    Daniel Orban, Daniel F. Keefe, Ayan Biswas, James Ahrens, and David Rogers. 2019. Drag and Track: A Direct Manipulation Interface for Contextualizing Data Instances within a Continuous Parameter Space.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics25, 1 (Jan. 2019), 256–266. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2018.2865051

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2018.2865051 2019

  70. [70]

    2007.The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics

    Roger A Pielke Jr. 2007.The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press

    work page 2007

  71. [71]

    Chenghai Qin, Ruru Zhang, and Yanling Xiao. 2022. A questionnaire-based validation of metacognitive strategies in writing and their predictive effects on the writing performance of English as foreign language student writers.Frontiers in Psychology13 (2022), 1071907

    work page 2022

  72. [72]

    Fatemeh Rabiee. 2004. Focus-group interview and data analysis.Proceedings of the nutrition society63, 4 (2004), 655–660

    work page 2004

  73. [73]

    Marissa Radensky, Daniel S Weld, Joseph Chee Chang, Pao Siangliulue, and Jonathan Bragg. 2024. Let’s Get to the Point: LLM-Supported Planning, Drafting, and Revising of Research-Paper Blog Posts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10370(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Marie-Claude Roland. 2009. Quality and integrity in scientific writing: prerequisites for quality in science communication.Journal of Science Communication8, 2 (2009), A04. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.08020204

    work page doi:10.22323/2.08020204 2009

  75. [75]

    Gillian Rowe, Jacob B Hirsh, and Adam K Anderson. 2007. Positive affect increases the breadth of attentional selection.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences104, 1 (2007), 383–388

    work page 2007

  76. [76]

    Maximilian Roßmann. 2025. Science Correction as a Communication Problem: Insights from Four Theoretical Lenses.OSF Preprints(3 February 2025). doi:10.31219/osf.io/82duj_v3

    work page doi:10.31219/osf.io/82duj_v3 2025

  77. [77]

    Margaret A Rubega, Kevin R Burgio, A Andrew M MacDonald, Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch, Robert S Capers, and Robert Wyss. 2021. Assessment by audiences shows little effect of science communication training.Science Communication43, 2 (2021), 139–169

    work page 2021

  78. [78]

    Saunders, Amara T

    Carol D. Saunders, Amara T. Brook, and Olin Eugene Myers. 2006. Using Psychology to Save Biodiversity and Human Well-Being.Conservation Biology20, 3 (2006), 702–705. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3879236

    work page arXiv 2006

  79. [79]

    Keegan Sawyer and Brooke Smith. 2024. Communication and engagement for basic science: insights and practical considerations.Journal of Science Communication23, 7 (2024), Y01

    work page 2024

  80. [80]

    Gregory Schraw and Rayne Sperling Dennison. 1994. Assessing metacognitive awareness.Contemporary educational psychology19, 4 (1994), 460–475

    work page 1994

Showing first 80 references.