Misc

Having navigated the academic publishing system as an author, reviewer and occasional editor, I can confirm that there are inconsistencies at almost every turn * . From the variable quality of reviews to the procedures in place during article or chapter production, even within the same journal, authors and reviewers can have very different experiences. Previously, I was led to believe that the role of an editor was clear and consistent. Editors read manuscripts, find reviewers, and make key decisions based on reviews and their own expertise. In addition, editors can help guide authors towards what they feel are the most important points that should be addressed following review. This is particularly important when it comes to clarifying the direction of a paper when reviewers express conflicting views. However, a number of editors and associate editors, who are sometimes paid by journals, don't always act in a way that is helpful or fair to authors and reviewers. In many instan...

Sometimes there is a disconnection between scientific methods used to investigate a given phenomena and the language used to describe subsequent results.  When it comes to understanding the impact of technology use on health, wellbeing or anything else for that matter, the gulf is vast.  See here for a related discussion.  This has become even more important as the   UK Government is currently conducting an enquiry around the impact of screen time and social media on young people. The outcome could lead to new guidelines for the public especially parents with young children.   Many academics have already submitted evidence that argues for a cautious approach when developing any new guidance or regulation because the evidence base suggesting any effects (good or bad) remains relatively weak.  However, other voices have concluded that social media and screen time is a public health issue that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.  ...