This guest editorial commentary introduces a special issue of Science Communication on artificial intelligence’s (AI) dual role as both a tool for and a topic of science communication. It argues that this dual role redistributes communicative and epistemic agency in ways that unsettle established assumptions about authorship, credibility, and trust. The commentary reviews seven studies spanning practitioner use, audience cognition, and misinformation correction, then develops two theoretical questions: how AI reshapes the social infrastructure of trust in science, and what science communication means when scientific discovery itself is partially delegated to AI.
AbramsonJ.AdlerJ.DungerJ.EvansR.GreenT.PritzelA.RonnebergerO.WillmoreL.BallardA. J.BambrickJ.BodensteinS. W.EvansD. A.HungC.-C.O’NeillM.ReimanD.TunyasuvunakoolK.WuZ.ŽemgulytėA.ArvanitiE.. . .JumperJ. M. (2024). Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3. Nature, 630(8016), 493–500. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w
2.
AltayS.GilardiF. (2024). People are skeptical of headlines labeled as AI-generated, even if true or human-made, because they assume full AI automation. PNAS Nexus, 3(10), pgae403. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae403
3.
AlvarezA.CaliskanA.CrockettM. J.HoS. S.MesseriL.WestJ. (2024). Science communication with generative AI. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(4), 625–627.
4.
Barel-Ben DavidY.SegevE.YosefR. (2026). Communicating science in the age of genAI: Can generative AI support the usage of higher-level science communication strategies in writing?Science Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470251411176
5.
BurnsT. W.O’ConnorD. J.StocklmayerS. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202.
6.
BurtonJ. W.SteinM.-K.JensenT. B. (2020). A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 33(2), 220–239.
7.
ChenC.TroyC.ZhangM. (2026). Pausing for reflection: How design fiction shapes environmentally responsible AI use and trust. Science Communication. Advance online publication.
8.
FiskeS. T.DupreeC. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Suppl. 4), 13593–13597.
9.
FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J. (2014). Digital media and perceptions of source credibility in political communication. In KenskiK.JamiesonK. H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political communication (pp. 417–436). Oxford University Press.
10.
FungT. K. F.LeungH. M.ZhouX.ZhengS. (2026). “What might happen with generative AI?”: Examining the role of prefactual thinking in the cognitive mediation model in the context of emerging technologies. Science Communication. Advance online publication.
11.
Gil de ZúñigaH.GoyanesM.DurotoyeT. (2024). A scholarly definition of artificial intelligence (AI): Advancing AI as a conceptual framework in communication research. Political Communication, 41(2), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2290497
12.
GuzmanA. L.LewisS. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence and communication: A human-machine communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22(1), 70–86.
13.
HovlandC. I.JanisI. L.KelleyH. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. Yale University Press.
14.
LoggJ. M.MinsonJ. A.MooreD. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005
15.
MesseriL.CrockettM. J. (2024). Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research. Nature, 627, 49–58.
16.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210–220.
17.
OhY. J.CalabreseC.XueH.ZhangX. (2026). Leveraging artificial intelligence chatbots to employ bypassing and correction strategies for addressing misinformation about contraceptive use. Science Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470261418533
18.
ReifJ. A.LarrickR. P.SollJ. B. (2025). Evidence of a social evaluation penalty for using AI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(19), e2426766122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2426766122
19.
RussellS.NorvigP. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed.). Pearson.
20.
WangY. (2026). Their AI vs our AI: Is there a hostile AI perception in correcting geopolitically framed climate misinformation in China?Science Communication. Advance online publication.
21.
WangZ.ZhuJ.WangZ.ZhaiV.WuJ. (2026). Generative AI so white: Racial biases in AI imagery across the United States and China. Science Communication. Advance online publication.
22.
YangS.SunY.ChoiJ. S.CaoX.ShenL.BorahP.WagnerM.ShahD. (2026). Scalable observed correction with generative AI: How motivationally relevant message features and design choices boost communicative engagement. Science Communication. Advance online publication.
