July 2021

The scientific method remains the best systematic approach we have been able to develop in our ongoing endeavor to advance human flourishing. But that does not mean it's perfect - indeed, it probably never will be. But what are the ways in which we can make science better? Perhaps some of the most fundamental ways lie in the process of publishing research findings. This applies to biodiversity science as much as it does to other scientific disciplines.

Randy Schekman joins me to pick apart some of the well-known and less well-known critiques of the scientific publication process, including the role of hype. Randy is a cell biologist, Nobel Prize winner, and previous editor-in-chief of PNAS, Annual Review of Cell Developmental Biology, and eLife. He is based at the University of California, Berkeley, where he has spent almost his entire career.

Links to resources:

• Nobel Prize organization pages about Randy. This article has various photos, including one of Randy's treasured microscope, which we discussed.

• Molecular Biology of the Gene - an important book that inspired Randy's career.

• Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals - Article in The Guardian, just after Randy won the Nobel prize in 2013.

• Scientific Research Shouldn’t Sit behind a Paywall - 2019 article in Scientific American, arguing for public access to scientific research results.

• Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America - Website of PNAS, of which Randy was editor-in-chief.

• eLife - Website of the journal, e-Life, of which Randy was editor-in-chief.

• Springer Nature - Website of the publisher, Springer Nature.

• Science - Website of the journal, Science.