For Yet Better Science

Maria Sibylla Merian was a German entomologist, naturalist and scientific illustrator. She was one of the earliest European naturalists to document observations about insects directly. Merian was a descendant of the Frankfurt branch of the Swiss Merian family.  

Twenty-year-old inventor, scientists and speaker Kiara Nirghin was always inquisitive about how the world worked. Struck by the drought in her home country of South Africa, in 2016 she created a low-cost, biodegradable, super absorbent polymer that can retain over 100 times its mass. Applied to agricultural fields, her polymer revolutionises water conservation by sustaining crops through periods of drought – with the ability to increase food security worldwide.

Purpose Whistle-blowing, which has become an integral part of the post-publication peer-review movement, is being fortified by social media. Anonymous commenting on blogs as well as Tweets about suspicions of academic misconduct can spread quickly on social media sites like Twitter. The purpose of this paper is to examine two cases to expand the discussion about how complex post-publication peer review is and to contextualize the use of social media within this movement. Design/methodology/approach This paper examines a Twitter-based exchange between an established pseudonymous blogger and science critic, Neuroskeptic , and Elizabeth Wager, the former COPE Chair, within a wider discussion of the use of social media in post-publication peer review. The paper also discusses false claims made on Twitter by another science watchdog, Leonid Schneider. The policies of 15 publishers related to anonymous or pseudonymous whistle-blowing are examined. Findings Four issues in the Neuroskeptic –Wa

Freedom of speech in academia can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it gives the liberty to express opinions about issues that affect academics, but on the other, such freedoms can also be used against academics, even by other academics. Science finds itself in a state of reform, perhaps even crisis, in which a dense amount of transformational changes are taking place. As the academic playing field transforms itself, one method by which this is taking place is through the correction of the literature via an active process of critical analysis. In peer review, this is generally handled primarily by blinded (i.e., known to the editors) peers, while in a post-publication process, this may also be subjected to anonymous (i.e., unknown identity to authors and editors) critique. One of the more radical end-points of the post-publication process, which may reveal errors or faults, are retractions. Two organizations, Retraction Watch and PubPeer, are leading the way in terms of raising awa

When discussing science communication, we believe some good practices can be learnt from the Harvard Business Review (HBR). The HBR was launched in 1922 as a magazine for the Harvard Business School, and its mission is to ‘serve as a bridge between academia and enterprises’.  The articles in HBR are research based but targeted at a non-academic readership. This is one of the main differences between HBR and scholarly journals and arguably one of its successes. HBR attracts a broad readership, including students, academics, company employees, top executives and business owners. The HBR English language total paid circulation is above 286 000,  and it publishes its content in 13 languages which is evidence of its broad reach across several regions. Most importantly, HBR is considered a prominent journal for managers and decision-makers. We assume the content of HBR influences the decision-making of some of the CEOs of top organisations and policy-makers. And is that not precisely what we