When James Butcher started his weekly Journalology1 newsletter in August 2022, it quickly became a valued resource for tracking and understanding the many changes occurring in scientific editing and publishing. In his more than 20 years in the industry, James has held many roles, from reporter to editor to publisher, and he brings that experience to his balanced and pragmatic analysis. Recently, Science Editor spoke to James about what makes a good editor and publisher, how he stays on top of industry developments, and what the future may hold. Science Editor: Let's start by telling us a little about your background: how you got started in scientific editing and publishing? James Butcher: I'm a neuroscientist. Well, not really because I haven't worked at a lab bench for 20-odd years, but I still think of myself as a neuroscientist. I did a PhD in neurophysiology at the University of Bristol. After that, I worked as a medical writer for a pharmaceutical company for a year, and then I worked for a popular science magazine called Inside the Human Body. It was a "part-work"—subscribers got a new issue each week, which was divided into sections. The idea was to help readers learn a little about anatomy, physiology, emergency medicine, and so on. It was a consumer magazine and had a very high circulation. I was the token scientist. Most of the other people on the team were arts graduates, but they were amazing editors. They helped me understand how to write good […]
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jonathan Schultz (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: