Looking for better science communication? Do it like the Harvard Business Review

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 would need in Sports and Exercise Medicine (SEM); to influence the decision-makers? 


https://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/9/2/e001611




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Interview of Elisabeth Bik – Scientific Editorial Director at uBiome

Image
"uBiome is the leader in microbial genomics. We develop microbiome products for both consumers as well as for patients and clinicians.  We have developed two clinical products, SmartGut for gastrointestinal conditions, and SmartJane, which combines vaginal microbiome analysis with STI and HPV genotyping. These clinical products are clinician-prescribed and are reimbursable by most health insurance companies." Elisabeth Bik
Read more

The troll Leonid Schneider & ‘For Better Science’: crank or cure?

Image
I’ve been aware of Leonid Schneider’s expose blog ever since the piece on the supposed  fraud of Nobel prize-winner Gregg Semenza  appeared on my Twitter feed. Schneider portrays himself as an  under-dog ; the self-styled “ failed scientist ” has taken a liking to pillaring the hypocrisies of the scientific establishment. To be honest, although criticisms of the undertakings of science are always needed, especially when it concerns matters of data integrity, publishing practices, and perverse incentives in academia, I am a bit weary of uncritically listening to someone who appears to have no established career in either science or science journalism (the only pieces published under his own name appear only on the blog he runs). And his pieces do come off with a bit of crankiness.
Read more