Under Review

Welcome to this episode of Under Review where I am joined by Professor Stephen Curry. Before taking retirement in late 2024, Stephen worked at Imperial for almost 30 years as a Professor of Structural Biology where he retained an Emeritus position. He continues to write about science and describes his area of expertise as figuring out the three-dimensional structures from biological molecules in atomic detail, using X-rays and crystals. Stephen has long been an active campaigner for the importance of engaging with the public and very much practiced what he preached with multiple outreach videos and articles in the mainstream media. He was also Imperial's first Associate Provost for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion. Whilst formally retired from academia, Stephen is still active as a writer and consultant, through his Reciprocal Space Blog and as a Senior Strategic Advisor for the Research on Research Institute.Stephen was chair of the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) for six years from 2017-23, which led to an invitation to speak at the meeting in the U.S. of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, known as NINDS. This in turn led to his recent paper on publishing negative results, which is the topic we are going to explore today. In this episode we discuss that publication bias is perpetuated by journals prioritizing positive results due to impact factor pressures and how that can be changed among other things. We discussed the importance of rewarding rigor over exciting results, viewing Francis Crick's own failures as valuable lessons.Stephen Curry - Imperial profileStephen Curry - Research on Research Institute profileStephen's Reciprocal Space blogStephen Curry on BlueskyAbout the show and hostAcademia has a 'wicked problem' - actually, it has several. Welcome to Under Review, the podcast where I give guests an opportunity to stop tweaking the edges and start reimagining a future where things might work better. What would stay, what would we build from scratch, and what needs throwing into the Under Review rubbish bin? It’s time to put the system itself... ‘under review.I’m Andy Tattersall and I’m a research communications consultant with 25 years previously working at a Russell Group university and over the course of this podcast I will speak to some of the sector’s boldest thinkers to bring us their most radical, left-field and blue sky ideas for reform. Find out more about me and my services via the following linkshttps://linktr.ee/andy_tattersall Music courtesy  PineAppleMusic https://pixabay.com/music/beats-sky-up-hip-hop-166453/

In this episode of Under Review I chat with Jason McDermott who is a senior research scientist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory where he has spent over two decades working at the intersection of computer science and biology. He is a leading expert in systems biology, and specialises in the use of computational models to understand how complex biological networks, such as the interactions between a virus and a human host function and response to stress. He is the hand behind the Red Pen Black Pen cartoons. The evolution of Red Pen, Black Pen began over a decade ago when Jason found himself seeking psychological relief from the frustrations of academia. He began doodling cartoons that captured the duality of research: the ‘black pen’ of creative discovery and the ‘red pen’ of harsh, often systemic, critique. What started as a way to vent about the deep cuts of lab life and peer review quickly resonated with a global audience of researchers and students who saw their own struggles reflected in his work. Jason argues that while science communication is traditionally stuffy, humour and metaphor are essential tools in a scientist’s toolbox, serving as icebreakers that can humanise complex data and highlight systemic issues without appearing heavy-handed.However, this creative approach to science is not without its risks, particularly for junior researchers. While Jason feels secure enough in his career to use humour, he cautions postdocs and graduate students to be thoughtful about their audience, as the academic establishment can sometimes view artistic flair as a ‘dumbing down’ of research. Despite these anxieties, Jason advocates for a shift away from the superficial metrics that currently blight the field, such as the obsession with publication counts and the h-index which he believes incentivises quantity over quality. He suggests that the neglected truth of science is the role of luck and happenstance, a reality often obscured by survivorship bias. To combat this, he envisions a future university system that prioritises formalised mentorship and team science over the individualistic, competitive model.Ultimately, Jason’s vision for the future of academia involves a fundamental rebranding of rejection. Rather than seeing reviewer three’s critique as a failure, he encourages scientists to view it as critical constructive feedback that acts as a valuable resource for improvement. By fostering a culture of kindness and collaboration, and by protecting the fundamental basic science that underpins all applied breakthroughs, the scientific community can move toward a more sustainable and engaging model. For those looking to follow in his footsteps, Jason’s advice is simple: start small in low-stakes environments like departmental seminars, focus on the story rather than the quality of the drawing, and remember that even the most complex grant is, at its heart, an exercise in communication.You can find Jason via these linksBluesky: @redpenblackpen Instagram: @redpenblackpenFacebook: @redpenblackpen LinkedIn: @redpenblackpenSubstack: https://redpenblackpen.substack.com/Academia has a 'wicked problem' - actually, it has several. Welcome to Under Review, the podcast where I give guests an opportunity to stop tweaking the edges and start reimagining a future where things might work better. What would stay, what would we build from scratch, and what needs throwing into the Under Review rubbish bin? It’s time to put the system itself.. ‘under review.I’m Andy Tattersall and I’m a research communications consultant with 25 years previously working at a Russell Group university and over the course of this podcast I will speak to some of the sector’s boldest thinkers to bring us their most radical, left-field and blue sky ideas for reform. Find out more about me and my services via the following linkshttps://linktr.ee/andy_tattersall Music courtesy  PineAppleMusic https://pixabay.com/music/beats-sky-up-hip-hop-166453/

In this episode of Under Review, I dive into a recent and thorny side of the academic ecosystem, that being AI hallucinations. While Large Language Models are revolutionising research, they are also ‘bullshitting’ their way into journals, fabricating references, and spreading like weeds through the publishing landscape.To get to the heart of the problem, I decided to put one of the perpetrators under the spotlight. This experimental episode features an AI-generated interview response to my questions with ChatGPT, voiced by a custom AI-voice tool to reflect the tech bro culture behind the code. Whilst those listeners who are more tech-savvy will be aware of the issues, they may be less aware of how far we are from fixing this issue, especially when some academics and students are falling over backwards to publish more and more AI-written papers and images. AI-generated voices are still far from perfect and this might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but an experimental approach to putting one of leading generative AI tools under review makes for an interesting listen. This episode uses AI-generated responses to surface systemic issues within academia, reflecting broad debates and critiques rather than personal lived experience.The transcript from the interview can be viewed via this link.https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRsHlBQZfle0e_-7B6XkPwjLFuvpQdr3m6ryOo-es04jYTFEz5i3QMu20LzprvX8YC7zXewfyj_z2p_/pubHosted and Produced by Andy Tattersallhttps://www.andytattersall.com/I’m Andy Tattersall and I’m a research communications consultant with 25 years previously working at a Russell Group university and over the course of this podcast I will speak to some of the sector’s boldest thinkers to bring us their most radical, left-field and blue sky ideas for reform. Music courtesy  PineAppleMusic https://pixabay.com/music/beats-sky-up-hip-hop-166453/

The balance has finally tipped. As of early 2026, UK universities on X are now in the minority. In this Rapid Response episode, I dive into a dataset of nearly 500 academic organizations to track the mass tactical retreat from Elon Musk’s platform. While universities were the most reluctant to leave the party, the data shows the glow has finally faded. With 76 institutions now inactive and engagement cratering, staying on X is starting to look less like holding the fort and more like getting trapped in a digital basement with some very dodgy people.I discuss the ethical and practical nails in the coffin, from Grok’s AI deepfakes to the platform's active de-prioritization of research. 57% of the sector has effectively ghosted the platform, but why are others reluctant to leave? The CILIP Contradiction: why is the UK’s professional body for librarians and information professionals still in the Ministry of Disinformation? The strategic difference between a broken platform and a difficult media outlet. How to execute a professional strategic relocation rather than a frantic midnight flit. Will your institution be the last one talking to itself at the party? It’s time to look at the data.

My guest is Elisabeth Bik who is a microbiologist and scientific integrity consultant. Her work involves detecting and outing photo manipulation in scientific publications. This problem has become a rather big one in the world of research, not least since the introduction of generative AI into the world of academic publishing.Elisabeth’s journey into the murky world of academic malpractice started over a decade ago when she was a victim of plagiarism. Her work has resulted in 1600 retractions, expressions of concern, and 1200 corrections as we speak. She is a leader in the area of scientific integrity and has received the 2021 Maddox Prize and the 2024 Einstein Foundation Award.We discussed the increasing scope and financial cost of academic misconduct, driven by the "publish or perish" culture, which leads to the rise of paper mills and the gaming of metrics. We agreed that current unpaid peer review is insufficient to detect fraud and requires professionalised, paid reviewers and secondary systems for scanning complex issues, while Bik strongly advocated for national or international committees to investigate misconduct cases due to conflicts of interest when universities review their own staff. Bik also suggested restructuring the scientific system by eliminating postdoctoral positions in favour of stable staff roles, shifting to 'micro publications' with public peer review, and prioritising funding for proven principal investigators to reduce the pressure to publish and address toxic work cultures.Academia has a 'wicked problem' - actually, it has several. Welcome to Under Review, the podcast where I give guests an opportunity to stop tweaking the edges and start reimagining a future where things might work better. What would stay, what would we build from scratch, and what needs throwing into the Under Review rubbish bin? It’s time to put the system itself... under review."I’m Andy Tattersall and I’m a research communications consultant who previously worked 25 years at a Russell Group university in the UK and over the course of this podcast I will speak to some of the sector’s boldest and brightest thinkers to explore a topic and bring us their most radical, left-field and blue sky ideas for reform. They will get to say what stays and what gets binned.Hosted and produced by Andy TattersallElisabeth BikElisabeth Bik on BlueskyScience Integrity Digest

Trailer for the forthcoming second edition of Under Review where renowned microbiologist and academic fraud investigator, Elisabeth Bik talks about how easy it has become to get fabricated images within academic papers through peer review and into journals. Using the example of the rat with the big testicles and penis, that was published in a Frontiers journal, highlighting the extent of the problem.Hosted and produced by Andy TattersallElisabeth BikElisabeth Bik on BlueskyScience Integrity Digest

Academia has a 'wicked problem' - actually, it has several. Welcome to Under Review, the podcast where I give guests an opportunity to stop tweaking the edges and start reimagining a future where things might work better. What would stay, what would we build from scratch, and what needs throwing into the Under Review rubbish bin? It’s time to put the system itself... ‘under review.What happens when one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions chooses to ignore a widespread call to remove Elon Musk from its fellowship at the expense of its own integrity? For the first episode of Under Review, we aren't pulling any punches.My guest is the esteemed academic and science communicator, Professor Dorothy Bishop. She is a leader in developmental neuropsychology, and an Emeritus Professor at the University of Oxford, and a tireless champion for open science. In 2024, Professor Bishop did something that sent shockwaves through the academic world by resigning from the Royal Society over Elon Musk’s continued inclusion as a fellow (Spoiler alert! Musk goes in the Under Review Bin). We explore academic reputation as a whole, making the right decisions and what the Royal Society should do to prevent future problems. We also discuss academic publishing, fraudulent practices, bad actors and the issue of peer review. Dorothy gets to be in charge for the day, picks where we should start again and what gets tossed into the Under Review Bin.Bishop Blog: https://deevybee.blogspot.com/Dorothy Bishop Oxford University page https://www.psy.ox.ac.uk/people/dorothy-bishopDorothy Bishop on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_V._M._BishopRelevant blog posts from Dorothy’s BishopBloghttps://deevybee.blogspot.com/2024/11/why-i-have-resigned-from-royal-society.html https://deevybee.blogspot.com/2025/02/seven-reasons-for-keeping-elon-musk-as.html https://deevybee.blogspot.com/2018/05/how-to-survive-on-twitter-simple-rule.html https://deevybee.blogspot.com/2020/01/research-funders-need-to-embrace-slow.html https://deevybee.blogspot.com/2024/07/whistleblowing-research-misconduct-and.html https://deevybee.blogspot.com/2026/01/an-open-letter-to-bmj-editorial-board.html Books featured in the conversation Elliott, C. (2024). The occasional human sacrifice. Norton. Bazerman, M. (2025). Inside an academic scandal. MIT press.Hosted and Produced by Andy TattersallI’m Andy Tattersall and I’m a research communications consultant with 25 years previously working at a Russell Group university and over the course of this podcast I will speak to some of the sector’s boldest thinkers to bring us their most radical, left-field and blue sky ideas for reform. Music courtesy  PineAppleMusic https://pixabay.com/music/beats-sky-up-hip-hop-166453/

I made a break for the outdoors and between the continual winter rain and gloom to head out into the fields near home. It was a good opportunity to talk about a new podcast series I am hosting called Under Review, where I invite esteemed guests from across academia to talk about how they would envisage the higher education world free of all the wicked problems that currently blight it. From publish or perish to predatory journals, from academic esteem to the REF. Expect bold ideas and reinvention and what doesn't work, gets thrown into the Under Review waste paper bin, never to be seen again.To find out what my guests suggest to save or bin, follow and subscribe to this podcast, here or on my YouTube channel.