Hanna Pettersson
LightNews LightNews
banner
hannalp.bsky.social
Hanna Pettersson
@hannalp.bsky.social
190 followers 85 following 28 posts
Conservation social scientist, human/political ecologist. Researching at the intersections of human-wildlife coexistence, pastoralism, (re)wilding, knowledge and governance.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Hanna Pettersson
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
hannalp.bsky.social
Ping those interested in just transitions of Europe's fantastically beautiful and bio-culturally diverse rural areas of Spain, Italy and Poland. If I didn't already have a job I'd be trying to swipe the Spain one (drool)
georgeiorda.bsky.social Dr George Iordachescu 🏳️‍🌈 🟥 @georgeiorda.bsky.social · 11d
🚨 We are looking for 3 new colleagues to join the GreenFrontier team as Postdoctoral Researchers!

Deadline for applications: 25 Nov 2025

Each of the 3 openings will involve extended ethnographic fieldwork + plenty of opportunities to consolidate research & leadership skills!

Please share widely!
November 3, 2025 at 10:30 AM
Reposted by Hanna Pettersson
georgeholmes.bsky.social
Short piece in @consletters.bsky.social exploring social, cultural, political and ecological apsects of illicit and unregulated species translocations - what others (not me, due to homophone errors) might call guerilla rewilding. conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...
Who Let the Frogs out? Illicit and Unregulated Species Translocations
Click on the article title to read more.
conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com
October 30, 2025 at 8:40 AM
Reposted by Hanna Pettersson
georgeholmes.bsky.social
Happy Fat Bear Week, for all of those who celebrate: explore.org/fat-bear-week
Fat Bear Week 2025
Fat Bear Week 2025
explore.org
September 23, 2025 at 7:30 AM
hannalp.bsky.social
Hot from the @consletters.bsky.social press: "Now What? The Conundrum of Successful Recovery of Wolves and Other Species for European Conservation", where Erica Von Essen and I discuss future trajectories of species recovery and management in Europe. Here summarised by @sthlmresilience.bsky.social.
sthlmresilience.bsky.social Stockholm Resilience Centre @sthlmresilience.bsky.social · Sep 18
🐺 Wolves and other large carnivore species are making a comeback in Europe.
Yet current conservation policies are still geared toward protecting species on the brink of extinction. This no longer reflects reality, argue researchers in a new commentary. www.stockholmresilience.org/5.1a496cd119...
Headline on top of image of howling wolf
September 18, 2025 at 12:58 PM
hannalp.bsky.social
What do we mean when we say that carnivores and other wildlife are "habituating" to people? Who actually habituates to whom? Is this bad or god? Who decides? All of this and more in our new paper, expertly led by @ethanddoney.bsky.social, out now in @peopleandnature.bsky.social.
September 18, 2025 at 11:40 AM
hannalp.bsky.social
Today at #COP16, discussions on how to realise the #KunmingMontrealGBF are resumed. The framework recognises the stewardship of "Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities". But, "Who is local, and what do they know?" 👉https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10797 @ipbes.net #CBD
February 25, 2025 at 2:40 PM
hannalp.bsky.social
Today another paper www.researchgate.net/publication/... was published claiming wolves can solve "the deer issue" in Scotland. So, sharing this excellent 🧵 by @adamfsmith.bsky.social on wolves and deer in Ireland 👉https://bsky.app/profile/adamfsmith.bsky.social/post/3liavws4oyk23
February 17, 2025 at 10:15 AM
Reposted by Hanna Pettersson
wildcru.bsky.social
The recent release of 4 lynx in the Cairngorm mountains highlights the nuances of managing the needs of stakeholders, including the big cats.

Darragh Hare, @georgeholmes.bsky.social & @hannalp.bsky.social explore the challenges surrounding illegal wildlife releases.

👉 bit.ly/4hmzSKV
Lynx lying on leaves and branches
January 17, 2025 at 10:36 AM
Reposted by Hanna Pettersson
georgeholmes.bsky.social
I wrote this @naturalengland.bsky.social blogpost at the start of last week, but the recent #lynx releases have brought this issue to the fore. P.S. the deadline for our PhD project on this has just closed, but we hope to advertise more opportunities soon.
www.linkedin.com/pulse/who-le...
Who let the frogs out? On illicit and unregulated species reintroductions.
George Holmes: Professor of Conservation and Society at the University of Leeds, and ESRT member. An odd thing has been happening across Europe in recent years.
www.linkedin.com
January 12, 2025 at 9:00 AM
hannalp.bsky.social
So-called guerrilla or rouge rewilding is becoming increasingly common, including "beaver bombings", releasing butterflies and, this past week, lynx to Scotland. What might this mean for conservation? @georgeholmes.bsky.social, Darragh Hare and I explore in theconversation.com/lynx-in-scot...
Lynx in Scotland: why illegal attempts to reintroduce lost species are surprisingly common
Guerrilla rewilders want to atone for past extinctions and create more vibrant ecosystems.
theconversation.com
January 15, 2025 at 9:30 AM