Social media at the core of science magazines — what the Science case tells us

Social media are becoming increasingly central to the survival and relevance of magazines and news outlets. They are no longer just channels for promoting published stories, but key spaces where editorial identities are negotiated, audiences are built, and engagement is measured in real time. For science journalism in particular, platforms such as Instagram and Facebook now function as extensions of the newsroom itself.

A recent peer-reviewed study titled “Comunicação científica e engajamento online: análise da revista Science no Instagram e Facebook” takes this transformation as its starting point. Authored by Suellen Cristina Rodrigues Kotz, Asdrúbal Borges Formiga Sobrinho, and Marina Silva Bicalho Rodrigues, the paper offers a quantitative analysis of how Science uses social media — and how audiences respond to it . Rather than focusing on journalistic content in the abstract, the authors examine real engagement data from Science’s official Instagram and Facebook accounts, collected over a 60-day period. Likes, comments, and shares are not simply vanity metrics but indicators of how different platforms shape interaction between scientific institutions and the public.

Instagram vs Facebook: visibility or discussion?

One of the clearest findings of the study is that engagement behaves differently across platforms. Instagram consistently generates higher numbers of likes and shares, confirming its role as a visibility-driven, visually oriented space. Facebook, meanwhile, shows comparatively lower overall engagement but a stronger tendency to host comments, suggesting a platform more conducive to discussion and argumentative exchange. For science magazines, this distinction matters. It implies that platform choice influences not just how many people are reached, but how they engage: fast, low-threshold reactions versus slower, more discursive forms of participation.

Contrary to widespread assumptions, the paper also finds that neither post format (static images versus short videos) nor scientific topic significantly alters engagement levels in a statistically robust way. While videos and certain subject areas may show slightly higher averages, these differences are not decisive. This challenges the idea that there is a universal recipe for success on social media. Instead, the findings suggest that engagement depends more on platform-specific dynamics and communicative strategies than on format or topic alone.

Why this matters beyond one journal

Although the analysis focuses on a single, highly prestigious outlet, its implications extend well beyond Science. The study highlights a broader shift in science communication: journals are no longer communicating only with peers, but with heterogeneous publics whose interactions are shaped by platform logics. For editors and communicators, the message is clear. Social media strategies need to be tailored, intentional, and aligned with editorial goals — whether those goals are visibility, dialogue, or public trust. Engagement cannot be copy-pasted across platforms, nor reduced to chasing the latest format trend.

The paper contributes to a growing body of evidence that social media are no longer peripheral to science journalism. They are part of its infrastructure — and understanding how they work is now an editorial necessity, not an optional skill.

Read the full paper (in portuguese): Comunicação científica e engajamento online: análise da revista Science no Instagram e Facebook