{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02476780185758514, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0041279669762641896, 'mean_word_length': 6.028985507246377, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Communicating geomorphology: an empirical evaluation of the discipline's impact and visibility

Concern among geomorphologists that the discipline's visibility and impact are becoming suppressed are reflected in a series of recent Earth Surface Exchanges (ESEX) commentaries by Tooth et al. This paper from the British Society for Geomorphology (BSG) Communicating Geomorphology Fixed‐Term Working Group (FTWG) reports initial findings from an online survey of BSG members alongside an empirical assessment of the term's prominence in academic output: international peer‐reviewed journals, undergraduate Geoscience degrees in world‐leading institutions and the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact statements. Our observations indicate the scientific standing of the discipline has been retained but the term itself is less widely utilised and we offer a series of suggestions actionable by the geomorphology community. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.