With the arrival of summer, the Greenland Ice Sheet has adopted its ‘summer look,’ revealing a few odd shapes and other curiosities.
Earlier this year, as spring began to warm Greenland, satellite images of the “Land of Ice and Snow” revealed something striking: several areas on the otherwise frozen landscape appeared with a rich blue coloration, almost reminiscent of sapphires and other precious stones.
Within a few weeks, these areas became even more appealing to the eye as summer temperatures revealed even more of these striking features, along with a few surprises.
Images obtained with the Operational Land Imager-2 (OLI-2) on NASA’s Landsat 9 satellite showed several odd circular formations, and even a smiley face, all of which are he result of natural processes that occur annually as the Greenland Ice Sheet begins to lose a bit of its wintertime chill.
“The colorful seasonal phenomenon is due to meltwater from snow and ice, which pools atop the ice sheet in places each melt season,” wrote Kathryn Hansen in a post at NASA’s Earth Observatory website. These melt ponds were spotted in imagery obtained on July 2, 2025, as Landsat 9 passed over a portion of the landscape between Greenland’s Nordenskiöld and Jakobshavn Glaciers.
In several of the images, shapes reminiscent of tadpoles or musical notes appear (see below), as meltwater runoff produces the characteristic “tails” on these icy formations:
In one instance, a “smiley face” also makes an appearance, produced from the unique shapes created by natural melting processes, as shown below:
In other portions of the imagery, some regions appear darker because of impurities captured within the ice, likely caused by the presence of ash, dust, or black carbon-rich deposits that settled on the landscape.
This darker coloration is believed to contribute to the speed at which ice melts each spring and summer on the Greenland Ice Sheet, as it lowers the reflectivity (albedo) of the surrounding ice, allowing more solar radiation to be absorbed during warmer weather months.
These unique areas are of interest to scientists for much more than the vivid colors and strange shapes they sometimes produce. Melt ponds, like those seen in the July Landsat 9 images, also help researchers determine how the ice moves and the influence of this movement on the widening of crevasses that open in the ice as portions of it thaw.
“Meltwater that drains through these cracks to the base of the ice can act as a lubricant between the ice sheet and bedrock,” Hansen explained, which can intermittently speed the passage of ice flows as they make their way toward the ocean.
Another important piece of information that these melt ponds can provide is a gauge for the strength of the annual Greenland melts. Typically occurring between May and September each year, data obtained this year indicates a slightly higher than average melt rate, especially in instances recorded along the western portion of the ice sheet.
According to data obtained by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the two strongest melt surges occurred between May and June. During last year’s melt season, instances were detected that showed the annual melt phenomena had seemingly begun occurring much farther from Greenland’s shores than is typically seen.
“Time will tell if summer melting will migrate even farther inland, as it did throughout July 2024,” Hansen wrote.
Additional information about NASA’s Landsat 9 can be found on NASA’s official page for the satellite and its mission, while additional imagery it collects is periodically made available at NASA’s Earth Observatory website.
Micah Hanks is the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Founder of The Debrief. He can be reached by email at micah@thedebrief.org. Follow his work at micahhanks.com and on X: @MicahHanks.
The United States Space Force has suspended its plan to establish a missile landing site in the Pacific Ocean, intended to test the use of commercial rockets for transporting large quantities of supplies to remote locations.
The proposed site was Johnston Atoll, a small group of islands about 1,300 kilometers southwest of Hawaii. Once a Cold War-era military base and later abandoned, the atoll is now closed to visitors and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2 View gallery
A comet with a long history. The orbit of the interstellar object 3I/ATLAS in the Milky Way (in red) and the orbit of our Sun (in yellow)
(Illustration: M. Hopkins/Ōtautahi-Oxford team)
The U.S. military newspaper Stars and Stripes reported that the Space Force suspended the program following opposition from environmental groups. In March, the Air Force announced an environmental review to assess the program’s potential impact on the islands’ ecosystem. Since then, many environmental organizations have raised concerns that the project would harm seabird populations on the atoll and disrupt the surrounding marine environment. A petition opposing the plan has gathered nearly 4,000 signatures.
The program called for building two landing pads on the islands, along with supporting infrastructure, to test rocket landings by private companies such as SpaceX. About ten landings per year were planned over a four-year testing period. SpaceX has previously stated that its Starships, designed for controlled vertical landings, could serve not only space missions — especially Mars colonization — but also deliver cargo and passengers at high speeds to virtually any location on Earth, including remote areas without airport infrastructure.
“The Department of the Air Force has elected to hold the preparation of the Johnston Atoll Environmental Assessment for a proposed rocket cargo landing demonstration on Johnston Atoll in abeyance while the service explores alternative options for implementation of the rocket cargo Vanguard program at a location other than Johnston Atoll,” Laurel Falls, an Air Force spokeswoman told the journal. The Air Force may also have more time than it thought: after nine test flights over more than two years, Starship is still far from operational readiness.
A week ago, an object originating from another solar system was discovered in our solar system, and this week it is already the focus of many studies aiming to decipher its composition and origin. Comet 3I/ATLAS is the third interstellar object ever detected, following ‘Oumuamua in 2017 and comet Borisov in 2019. This newcomer is traveling nearly twice as fast as its predecessors, streaking through our solar system at about 57 kilometers per second — over 200,000 kilometers per hour relative to the Sun. An observational study already posted to a preprint site found that this new visitor has a relatively reddish color, which increases the likelihood that it indeed came from outside our solar system. Another study points to its structural similarity to comets we’re familiar with.
2 View gallery
There’s a good chance complex molecules exist there, but the water may be too alkaline for life. Plumes from Enceladus as photographed by the Cassini spacecraft
(Photo: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute)
“This thing’s coming in much faster than the other two, but it is actually within the range of velocities that we would predict in objects. So we don’t think that’s notable, but it’s moving fast up and down relative to the plane of the galaxy in a vertical velocity, so it gives us a clue about where it’s from. “Our model predicts that it’s from a star in the thick disc of the galaxy,” said Chris Lintott, professor of astrophysics at the University of Oxford, UK. The thick disk is a distinct region of the Milky Way — and other spiral galaxies — separate from the thin disk, where the spiral arms and our Sun reside. The thick disk typically contains older stars.
“[Comet 3I/ATLAS] is probably from an old star in the thick disc, and we think that it’s likely that this thing’s been out there for longer than the age of the Solar System.”
Lintott added. “There’s a two-thirds chance that it’s older than 7 billion, and that would explain the colour. So these things get processed by cosmic rays and turn red. I think the thing that’s most exciting for me is that if it is from the thick disk, we’re seeing an object from a part of the galaxy we’ve never seen one before.”
Lintott and his colleagues also quickly published their preliminary findings on the interstellar comet and posted them as a preprint. Unlike its two predecessors, 3I/ATLAS will give scientists plenty of time to study it, as it is expected to remain visible for many months. Though too small and distant to be seen with the naked eye, it’s easily observable through telescopes and will look even better when it reaches its closest approach to Earth — about 250 million kilometers away — this December.
In recent years, growing evidence suggests that several moons in our solar system harbor subsurface oceans of liquid water deep beneath ice shells tens of kilometers thick. Among the most intriguing is Enceladus, a moon of Saturn, which has drawn considerable interest since strong evidence for its hidden ocean emerged about two decades ago, mainly due to the tantalizing possibility that it could host life.
The Cassini spacecraft, which studied Saturn, its moons, and rings until its mission ended in 2017, documented jets of water erupting into space through cracks in Enceladus’s ice. Cassini even managed to fly through these plumes and sampled material from them, despite not being originally designed for such applications and having instruments with limited capability to analyze their composition.
Cassini was never intended to return to Earth, nd at the end of its mission, it was deliberately crashed into Saturn, along with the samples it had collected. But the data it transmitted remained with researchers. Now, a research team has used Cassini’s data to attempt to analyze the acidity of Enceladus’s ocean and concluded that it is highly basic (alkaline), near the upper limit for conditions that could potentially support the existence of life as we know it on Earth.
Acidity is measured using the pH scale, which indicates how acidic or basic (alkaline) a substance is. The scale ranges from 0 to 14: A pH of 7 is neutral, like distilled water; values below 7 indicate acidity, while values above 7 indicate alkalinity (or basicity). Earth’s oceans are slightly basic, with a pH around 8. In contrast, Enceladus’s ocean is much more alkaline, and researchers estimate its pH to be between 10.1 and 11.6, based on the ratios of various compounds.
“High pH tends to break apart biological polymers. However, we know that some microbes on Earth can tolerate the range of pH found on Enceladus,” said Christopher Glein, head of the research team, from the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) in San Antonio, Texas. Metals become less soluble at higher pH, so iron may be scarce in Enceladus’ ocean. I think the best place to live would be on the seafloor. If you’re a microbe, you could directly ‘mine’ iron and other metals from minerals without relying on solubility. We might want to think about biofilms on Enceladus.”
Despite Glein’s optimism about the potential for life, it’s important to remember that we still don’t know the exact composition of Enceladus’s ocean. Previous studies suggest there’s a good chance of finding complex molecules there, but we won’t know for sure until we explore it directly. One future mission that could search for reliable signs of life is the Israeli Eureka initiative, which, if it moves forward, could survey the surface of Europa, Jupiter’s moon, and possibly Enceladus as well, in search of complex amino acids.
CINCINNATI (WKRC) – Research suggests that using cannabis may alter a person’s epigenetic code.
The research suggested that marijuana use can impact the genetic code responsible for activating and deactivating various genes.
The study highlighted the importance of understanding marijuana’s effects on the body, as it remains one of the most widely used drugs globally. While some effects are well-known, the research indicated a broader impact than previously anticipated.
Most notably, one marker identified in the study is similar to those found in tobacco use, suggesting a closer link between the two substances than previously thought.
Researchers originally aimed to find out how cannabis use affects the epigenetic code, which in turn could reveal potential positive or negative health effects for humans who use the substance. They focused on genes related to aging, typically regulated by the body’s epigenetic code. Understanding these changes could provide insights into aging processes and the body’s “epigenetic age.”
“In our study, we observed associations between cumulative marijuana use and multiple epigenetic markers across time,” said Lifang Hou, who was the senior author of the study. “Interestingly, we consistently identified one marker that has previously been associated with tobacco use, suggesting a potential shared epigenetic regulation between tobacco and marijuana use. The observed marijuana markers were also associated with cell proliferation, infection and psychiatric disorders, however, additional studies are needed to replicate and verify these findings.”
The study involved data from participants who reported their cannabis use over several years. Researchers analyzed blood samples taken five years apart, comparing them based on factors such as continuous and recent cannabis use. The findings revealed several markers associated with both types of use.
Despite these insights, researchers emphasized the need for further studies to fully comprehend the connections and their extent within the epigenetic code.
“This research has provided novel insights into the association between marijuana use and epigenetic factors,” Dr. Drew Nannini said. “Additional studies are needed to determine whether these associations are consistently observed in different populations. Moreover, studies examining the effect of marijuana on age-related health outcomes may provide further insight into the long-term effect of marijuana on health.”
Nonetheless, the research offers new perspectives on the relationship between marijuana use and epigenetic factors.
At first glance, the Orion Nebula Cluster, the Pleiades, and the Hyades appear to be separate star groups, scattered across different parts of the night sky. Their distinct locations and appearances make it easy to assume they have no connection to one another.
However, new research suggests that these well-known star clusters might be more than neighbors – they might be snapshots of the same system, seen at different stages in life.
This surprising connection comes from scientists at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Basic Sciences (IASBS) in Iran and the University of Bonn in Germany.
The study shows that the Orion Nebula Cluster, the Pleiades, and the Hyades likely formed from the same original star system. The findings are changing how we think about star formation.
The Orion Nebula Cluster (ONC) is the youngest of the trio – just 2.5 million years old. It’s also the most active, filled with thousands of young stars and surrounded by the gas cloud that birthed them.
You can spot it in Orion’s Sword, although it looks like just one bright “star” to the naked eye.
Then there’s the Pleiades – visible as a tight knot of stars nearby in the sky. At 100 million years old, its stars are more spread out, having had time to drift away from each other.
Finally, the Hyades is around 700 million years old. Its stars are far more scattered and fewer in number.
Despite their different ages and distances, scientists believe these three clusters are linked.
“Our highly precise stellar dynamics calculations have now shown that all three star clusters originated from the same predecessor,” said study co-author Dr. Pavel Kroupa.
“The Orion Nebula, Pleiades and Hyades are like three different photos of the same person. These three photos show this entity at different ages: as a baby, adolescent and elderly.”
This discovery isn’t just poetic – it’s pointing to something deeper about how stars form. According to the researchers, open star clusters might follow a consistent pattern in their development, regardless of the specific molecular cloud that births them.
“It is a bit like if the same person was being born over and over again,” said Dr. Kroupa. “From this we can learn that open star clusters seem to have a preferred mode of star formation.”
“It appears that there is a preferred physical environment in which stars form when they evolve within these clouds.”
To test this idea, Dr. Ghasem Safaei and his team at the IASBS used powerful computer simulations.
The experts modeled how a dense, young cluster like Orion could naturally transform into the more spread-out Pleiades, and then into the elderly Hyades, over hundreds of millions of years.
The simulations were based on careful calculations of how the stars interact with each other and with their environment. Over time, a cluster loses stars and gas due to gravitational forces, both internal and external.
“This research shows that it is entirely plausible that star clusters such as the Orion Nebula Cluster follow a development path that transforms them into systems like Pleiades and later on Hyades,” said study co-author Professor Hosein Haghi.
The models ran for 800 million years and started with the latest real-world data – high star density, compact shapes, and a high number of double stars.
“The results show that clusters such as the Orion Nebula Cluster can lose up to 85 percent of their stars but nevertheless retain a coherent structure similar to Hyades, after they have passed through an intermediate stage similar to Pleiades,” said Dr. Safaei.
What makes this even more intriguing is the fact that all three clusters sit in roughly the same region of the night sky. For decades, astronomers have wondered if this is just a coincidence or something more.
The team believes this alignment supports the idea that they share a common origin. It could reflect how these clusters form and evolve in the same part of our galaxy, influenced by similar conditions.
Understanding these connections also helps astronomers grasp how internal and external forces shape a star cluster’s fate.
“This research gives us a deeper understanding of how star clusters form and develop and illustrates the delicate balance between internal dynamics and external forces such as the gravitational pull of the Milky Way,” said study co-author Professor Akram Hasani Zonoozi.
The research doesn’t just reveal how one star cluster ages. It shows how theory and observation can work hand-in-hand to reconstruct a cosmic story billions of years in the making.
As researchers refine these models, they may unlock similar patterns in other parts of the Milky Way – and perhaps even beyond.
The full study was published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
—–
Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.
Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.
—–
There used to be an American congressman who voted against LGBT protections while in Congress. After finishing his term, he confessed to be gay. This may explain why some of the most vocal SETI advocates are speaking against the possibility that anomalous interstellar objects, like 1I/’Oumuamua or 3I/ATLAS, might be technological in origin. Deep down, they are fascinated by the hypothesis but they have a hard time being honest with themselves and admitting it.
What gives me strength to continue with my research on testing this hypothesis with data is that I am getting dozens of emails every day from fans who follow my work. One of them wrote today:
“Dear Professor Loeb,
[…] I am writing to you as a parent and as someone who admires your work. My 9-year-old son is your biggest fan. He has read every paper you have published in the past two years and watched all your interviews on YouTube. Your work is his greatest inspiration.
[…] He is an extraordinary child. […] He taught himself to program in Python, C, and Java from the age of six. He has been reading in English since he was four. Now he is writing papers about physics, inspired by you, and dreams of one day studying at Harvard, following your path.
[…] I am a software engineer, but my son’s knowledge in physics and programming has already surpassed my own. Most of the time, I do not fully understand the ideas he shares with me. He has never had a friend or mentor who understands or appreciates his interests. This makes it even harder for him to connect with others.
I know your time is valuable, but I am asking if you could help me guide my son. Is there any way he could connect with like-minded people, join relevant programs, or find a mentor to help him develop his talent and passion for physics? Even a short message from you would mean a lot to him.
I have attached his latest paper. […] Any advice, feedback, or guidance would be very much appreciated.
Thank you very much for your time and for being such an inspiration to me and my son.
With respect and gratitude, […]”
In reply, I wrote:
“Thank you so much for letting me know about your brilliant son. I hope he will become an astrophysicist later in life. For now, my recommendation is to expose him to science through a subscription to a science magazine or outlet that fits his interests and knowledge (such as Sky & Telescope, Space.com or Scientific American). If he is not already signed up, he is also most welcome to subscribe to my Medium.com essays at: https://avi-loeb.medium.com/
There are also special science education programs, […including…] summer internships at NASA centers and some universities funded by NSF.
Of course, once he can attend college, he should take courses following his interests. I very much hope that he will solve one of the big mysteries about the Universe, such as: `Are we alone?’ and `What is dark matter and dark energy?’
With warm regards,
Avi”
In another email today, a colleague noted:
“It amazes me how resilient you are, Avi. I believe it was acquired during your practice of sports…as well as by genetics :)”
to which I replied:
“It is just a selection effect. If I was not as resilient, you would have never heard of me. For every person like me there must be hundreds of young `Avi Loebs’ who were deterred from pursuing innovative research after experiencing the pushback I get.”
Here’s hoping that the young generation of today will promote an inspiring future for all of us, a future full of scientific insights — discovered at a faster pace than those of my generation. Science offers the privilege of staying open-minded and curious. Unfortunately, some scientists use science to promote their status, claim to know the answers in advance of conclusive evidence, and deny the need for being curious. One reason I seek a higher intelligence in outer space is because I have a hard time finding it among these colleagues. I can only hope that they too will finally exhibit a sense of humility once we will all encounter clear signs of alien technology in the Solar System. Will that happen before artificial intelligence (AI) will supersede our intelligence? The race is on and the winner will be announced in the coming years based on advances in AI as well as the nature of 3I/ATLAS and future interstellar objects to be found by the Rubin Observatory in Chile.
A natural comet to which interstellar objects should be compared is the interstellar comet 2I/Borisov. Its glowing cometary tail was obvious at half the discovery distance of 3I/ATLAS. We will know if 3I/ATLAS is a comet of a similar nature once it gets closer to the Sun within the coming month or two. To those who are impatient, the Hubble Space Telescope might detect or constrain the extent of its cometary tail as early as tomorrow. Later on, observers will be able to search for non-gravitational acceleration beyond the value expected from the rocket effect of cometary evaporation.
All in all, 3I/ATLAS offers a wonderful opportunity to witness how exciting science is — largely as work in progress guided by evidence rather than opinions.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Avi Loeb is the head of the Galileo Project, founding director of Harvard University’s — Black Hole Initiative, director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the former chair of the astronomy department at Harvard University (2011–2020). He is a former member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and a former chair of the Board on Physics and Astronomy of the National Academies. He is the bestselling author of “Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth” and a co-author of the textbook “Life in the Cosmos”, both published in 2021. The paperback edition of his new book, titled “Interstellar”, was published in August 2024.
Scientists have shared what they believe to be the most likely way the universe will end.
I’m sure we would all like to think that we will meet a nice and peaceful fate, but all theories relating to the way the universe may eventually end are, as I’m sure you can imagine, quite extreme.
The universe has been expanding for billions of years ever since the Big Bang, which created our world as we know it.
It’s said that this ongoing expansion is aided by something called dark energy.
NASA says of dark energy: “Dark energy has been described by some as having the effect of a negative pressure that is pushing space outward. However, we don’t know if dark energy has the effect of any type of force at all.”
.jpg)
The universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years old (Getty Stock Image)
It adds: “There are many ideas floating around about what dark energy could possibly be. Here are four leading explanations for dark energy. Keep in mind that it’s possible it’s something else entirely.”
But there are fears that dark energy is weakening as time goes on, meaning the universe will ultimately shrink in what cosmologists call the ‘Big Crunch’.
In simple terms, the Big Crunch is the opposite to the Big Bang and will see the universe snap back into a singularity.
Scientists from Cornell University have recently calculated when the Big Crunch could begin and hailed it as the likely outcome for our universe.
In the study, it claims that our universe will begin to shrink in around seven billion years time, when it reaches its predicted maximum expansion size.
It will then take another several billion years for the universe to snap back into its original state. All in all, it’s predicted that the whole thing will take 33.3 billion years before the universe dies — so don’t be canceling next year’s summer vacation just yet.
The ‘Big Crunch’ would see the universe collapse back in on itself (Getty Stock Image)
As to how scientists came to this number, it comes down to tracking dark energy’s behavior and seeing if it has been increasing, decreasing, or is a constant force.
Looking over a series of astronomical surveys, it was concluded that the Big Crunch will ultimately end our universe in 33.3 billion years.
Our future pretty much depends on dark energy, says Michael Levi from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Levi told BBC’s Sky at Night Magazine: “Whatever the nature of dark energy is, it will shape the future of our universe.
“It’s pretty remarkable that we can look up at the sky with our telescopes and try to answer one of the biggest questions that humanity has ever asked.”
The dysfunctions of scientific publishing that your article so aptly captured derive from two forces (Quality of scientific papers questioned as academics ‘overwhelmed’ by the millions published, 13 July) – researchers are incentivised to publish as much as possible and publishers make more money if they publish more papers.
Artificial intelligence will not fix this. Churning out more papers faster has got us to this place. Given current incentives, AI will mean churning them out even faster. A paper written by AI, peer-reviewed by AI and read only by AI creates a self-reinforcing loop that holds no real value, erodes trust in science and voids scientific inquiry of meaning. Research is driven by our wonder at the world. That needs to be central to any reform of scientific publishing.
Instead, the driving forces can be addressed by two measures. Incentives for researchers can and should prioritise quality over quantity, and meaning over metrics. And publishers’ extortionate fees (fuelling profits of more than 30%) can and should be refused by those who pay them. Both the incentives and publishers’ contracts are governed by the funders of research – universities, research councils and foundations. Their welcome attempts to engage with these problems through Plan S, which aims to make research publications open access, have not succeeded because these have been captured by publishers that twisted them to their advantage, making yet more profits.
There are examples, often beyond the global north, of scientific publishing that is not geared towards generating profits for publishers. SciELO (which is centred on Latin America) is one, and the Global Diamond Open Access Alliance champions many others. We have much to learn from them. Research is in a parlous state in the English-speaking world – at risk for the truths it tells in the US, and for its expense in Britain. Funders have the power radically to alter the incentives scientists face and to lower the rents extracted by publishers.
Dan Brockington
Icrea (Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies)
Paolo Crosetto
Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory
Pablo Gomez Barreiro
Science services and laboratories, Kew Gardens
Your article on the overwhelming volume of scientific papers rightly highlights a system under pressure. But the deeper dysfunction lies not only in quantity, but in the economics of scholarly publishing, where publishers cash in on researchers’ dependence on journals for academic careers. The academic publishing market systematically diverts public research funds into shareholder profits.
Open access was meant to democratise knowledge, but its original vision has been co-opted by commercial publishers. It was BioMed Central (now Springer-Nature) that first introduced the “author pays” model to secure revenue streams. With article processing charges (APCs) now being the dominant open-access model, authors routinely pay between £2,000 and £10,000 to publish a single article, even if the cost of producing it does not exceed £1,000.
Some of us attended the recent Royal Society conference on the future of scientific publishing, where its vice-president, Sir Mark Walport, reminded the audience that academic publishing isn’t free and that if we want to remove paywalls for both authors and readers, someone must pay the bills.
We argue that there is already enough money in the system, which allows leading publishers such as Elsevier to generate profit margins of 38%. Our most recent estimates show that researchers paid close to $9bn in APCs to six publishers in 2019-23, with annual amounts nearly tripling in these five years. These most recent estimates far exceed the $1bn estimated for 2015-18 that your article cites.
As further emphasised at the Royal Society meeting, publishers monetise the current role that journal prestige plays in hiring, promotion and funding. Therefore, in order to make open access sustainable and to put a stop to these extractive business practices, it is essential to reform academic assessment and decouple it from knowledge dissemination.
Stefanie Haustein
Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa; Co-director, Scholarly Communications Lab
Eric Schares
Engineering and collection analysis librarian, University Library, Iowa State University
Leigh-Ann Butler
Scholarly communication librarian, University of Ottawa
Juan Pablo Alperin
Associate professor, School of Publishing, Simon Fraser University; Scientific director, Public Knowledge Project
Academic publishing is creaking at the seams. Too many articles are published and too many journals don’t add real value. Researchers are incentivised to publish quantity over quality, and some journal publishers benefit from this. This detracts from the excellent, world-changing and increasingly open-access research that we all need to flourish – and that quality publishers cultivate.
Generative AI only scales up these pressures, as your article shows. Something has to change. That’s why Cambridge University Press has spent the last few months collaborating with researchers, librarians, publishers, funders and learned societies across the globe on a radical and pragmatic review of the open research publishing ecosystem, which we will publish in the autumn.
Focusing on generative AI or on low-quality journals alone is insufficient. We need a system-wide approach that reviews and rethinks the link between publishing, reward and recognition; equity in research dissemination; research integrity; and one that takes technological change seriously.
The system is about to break. We need creative thinking and commitment from all players to fix it and to build something better.
Mandy Hill
Managing director, Cambridge University Press
A newly redesigned focus wheel with a new precision contour
overmold for ultra-fine focal adjustment: another key feature of SIG Sauer
ZULU4 HD binoculars.
The pretty expansive feature list of the new SIG Sauer ZULU4 HD binoculars includes: HD glass lenses pair high definition and high transmittance glass for ultra-high resolution and light transmission, the already mentioned proprietary anti-reflective SpectraCoat, LensArmor, and LenShield technologies, 2-position adjustable eyecups, new molded EVA carrying case for streamlined protection and IPX7 waterproof and fogproof rating. They can also be mounted to tripod adapter using a standard 1/4”-20 threaded insert.
SIG Sauer claims that ZULU4 HD binoculars are field-ready and “deliver elite performance from sunrise glassing to last-light observation” thanks to their premium high-definition glass providing unmatched resolution and light transmission.
The ZULU4 HD binoculars come in Flat Dark Earth (FDE) color. Prices are $449.99 for the 10×42 and $549.99 for the 12×50. A foam carry case and neck strap are included.
|
Model: |
ZULU4 HD 10×42 |
ZULU4 HD 12×50 |
|
Magnification: |
10x |
12x |
| Color: |
Flat Dark Earth (FDE) |
|
|
Objective Lens Diameter: |
42 mm |
50 mm |
|
Apparent Field of View: |
60° |
57.6° |
|
Twilight Factor: |
20.5 |
25 |
|
Weight: |
757 g |
954 g |
|
Length: |
146 mm |
171 mm |
|
Height: |
50 mm |
63 mm |
|
Width: |
127 mm |
133 mm |
|
Frame Material: |
Magnesium |
|
|
Eye Relief: |
16 mm |
15.5 mm |
|
Field of View: |
6.0º |
4.8º |
|
Housing Protection: |
Rubber armor |
|
|
Diopter Adjustment: |
Range: +/- 3 |
|
|
Near Focus (M): |
1.8 m |
2.8 m |
|
Interpupilary Distance: |
56mm-70mm |
58mm-72mm |
|
Price: |
$449.99 |
$549.99 |
For more information please visit the SIG Sauer website.