Parting by Sebastian Haffner: the forgotten German novel of the early 1930s that’s become a bestseller

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrea Hammel, Professor of German, Aberystwyth University

Sebastian Haffner and his novel, Abschied (Parting). Wiki Commons/Canva, CC BY

Abschied (Parting) by Sebastian Haffner (1907-1999) is dominating the bestseller charts in Germany. It has been published posthumously, over 25 years after his death, after the manuscript was found in a drawer.

The novel is a love story between Raimund, a young non-Jewish German student of law from Berlin, and Teddy, a young Jewish woman from Vienna. Raimund and Teddy meet on August 31 1930 in Berlin and the novel covers the time they spend in Berlin and Paris together.

Abschied was written between October 18 and November 23 1932, just before the Nazi takeover. It reads in the breathless, immediate manner in which it was clearly conceived. It also gives a personal insight into the zeitgeist of the final months of the Weimar Republic.

Haffner was born Raimund Pretzel in Berlin, where he trained as a lawyer. He disagreed with the Nazi regime and emigrated to London in 1938. There, in order to protect his family in Germany from potential Nazi retribution he changed his name.


Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.


It is estimated that around 80,000 German-speaking refugees from Nazism lived in the UK by September 1939. Most of these refugees were Jewish, but there was also a sizeable number who, like Haffner, had fled for political reasons. Many politically committed exiles arrived soon after 1933 but this was not the case for Haffner. In the 1930s he was busy being a young man in Berlin, training as a lawyer and enjoying himself.

Haffner’s father was an educationalist who had a library with 10,000 volumes. As a young man Haffner liked reading, and toyed with the idea of becoming a writer and journalist, but his father advised him to study law and aim for a career in the civil service. Political developments in Germany made this option increasingly unpalatable. Initially Haffner found it difficult to see a way out. As he wrote in Defying Hitler: “Daily life […] made it difficult to see the situation clearly.”

In the book he also describes how he and other Germans acquiesced to the new regime. Haffner was disgusted with his own reaction to the SA (the Nazi party’s private army) entering the library of the court building where he was a pupil, asking those present whether they were Aryan and throwing out Jewish members of the court.

When questioned by an SA man, Haffner replied that he was indeed Aryan and felt immediately ashamed: “A moment too late I felt the shame, the defeat. I had said, ‘Yes’. […] What a humiliation to have answered the unjustified question whether I was Aryan so easily, even if the fact was of no importance to me.” Haffner never really took up his career as a lawyer, because it would have meant upholding Nazi laws and Nazi justice. Instead he started working as a journalist and writer, first in Germany and after his escape in 1938 in the UK.

Life in the UK

Soon after his arrival in the UK, Haffner finished a book titled Defying Hitler (1939). The memoir was both autobiographical and a political history of the period – but after the outbreak of the second world war it was considered not polemical enough, and was dismissed as an unsuitable explanation for the rise of Nazism at the time. But the intermingling of private and public history is of great interest to readers in the 21st century. Defying Hitler was published posthumously in German (2000) and in English (2003) and became a bestseller in both languages.

After Defying Hitler, Haffner turned to writing another book, Germany: Jekyll and Hyde (1940). It was more clearly anti-Nazi and focused on his journalism – during the war, he worked for the Foreign Office on anti-Nazi propaganda and he was later employed by The Observer as a political journalist. The book was a success, and Winston Churchill is said to have told his cabinet to read it.

The handwritten manuscript for Abschied, which was never published in Haffner’s lifetime, was found in a drawer by his son Oliver Pretzel, some time after his father’s death.

The German critic Volker Weidemann who wrote the epilogue to Parting toys with the idea that it was never published because its focus on the love story was considered a bit too trivial for such a great writer. Thanks to his work for The Observer after 1941, Haffner was a well-regarded political journalist and historical biographer. He became the paper’s German correspondent in 1954, and was well known for his column in West Germany’s Stern magazine and for his biographies, including one on Churchill (1967).

The perspective of a young non-Jewish German living a relatively ordinary life in the early 1930s makes Abschied a fascinating read. Academics have been exploring everyday life under Nazi rule for nearly half a century now, but it seems that modern readers are still keen to learn about it today.

Perhaps the novel resonates with so many German readers because we live in a time where many struggle with the inevitable continuation of everyday life while politics is becoming ever more extraordinary.

The Conversation

Andrea Hammel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Parting by Sebastian Haffner: the forgotten German novel of the early 1930s that’s become a bestseller – https://theconversation.com/parting-by-sebastian-haffner-the-forgotten-german-novel-of-the-early-1930s-thats-become-a-bestseller-260154

How often should you really be washing your bedding? A microbiologist explains

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Primrose Freestone, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Microbiology, University of Leicester

Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock

Most of us spend around a third of our lives in bed. Sleep isn’t just downtime; it’s essential for normal brain function and overall health. And while we often focus on how many hours we’re getting, the quality of our sleep environment matters too. A clean, welcoming bed with crisp sheets, soft pillowcases and fresh blankets not only feels good, it also supports better rest.

But how often should we really be washing our bed linens?

According to a 2022 YouGov poll, just 28% of Brits wash their sheets once a week. A surprising number admitted to leaving it much longer, with some stretching to eight weeks or more between washes. So what’s the science-backed guidance?

Let’s break down what’s actually happening in your bed every night – and why regular washing is more than just a question of cleanliness.


Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


Each night, as we sleep, we shed hundreds of thousands of skin cells, excrete oils from our sebaceous glands, and sweat up to half a pint of fluid – even if we’ve showered just before bed. Our skin hosts millions of bacteria and fungi, many of which are transferred onto sheets, pillows and duvets as we move during the night.

That fresh sweat may be odourless, but bacteria on our skin, particularly staphylococci, break it down into smelly byproducts. This is often why you wake up with body odour, even if you went to bed clean.

But it’s not just about microbes. During the day, our hair and bodies collect pollutants, dust, pollen and allergens, which can also transfer to our bedding. These can trigger allergies, affect breathing, and contribute to poor air quality in the bedroom.

Dust mites, fungi and other unseen bedfellows

The flakes of skin we shed every night become food for dust mites – microscopic creatures that thrive in warm, damp bedding and mattresses. The mites themselves aren’t dangerous, but their faecal droppings are potent allergens that can aggravate eczema, asthma and allergic rhinitis.

Fungi also find your bed appealing. Some species, like aspergillus fumigatus, have been detected in used bed pillows and can cause serious lung infections, particularly in people with weakened immune systems.

If you sleep with pets, the microbial party gets even livelier. Animals introduce extra hair, dander, dirt and sometimes faecal traces into your sheets and blankets, increasing the frequency at which you should be washing them.




Read more:
There are benefits to sharing a bed with your pet — as long as you’re scrupulously clean


So, how often should you wash your bedding?

Sheets and pillowcases

  • When: Weekly, or every three to four days if you’ve been ill, sweat heavily, or share your bed with pets.

  • Why: To remove sweat, oils, microbes, allergens and dead skin cells.

  • How: Wash at 60°C or higher with detergent to kill bacteria and dust mites. For deeper sanitisation, tumble dry or iron. To target dust mites inside pillows, freeze for at least 8 hours.

Mattresses

  • When: Vacuum at least weekly and air the mattress every few days.

  • Why: Sweat increases moisture levels, creating a breeding ground for mites.

  • Tips: Use a plastic or allergen-proof mattress protector and replace the mattress every seven years to maintain hygiene and support.

Pillow interiors

Blankets and duvet covers

  • When: Every two weeks, or more often if pets sleep on them.

  • Why: They trap skin cells, sweat and allergens.

  • How: Wash at 60°C or as high as the care label allows. Some guidance recommends treating these like towels: regular and hot washes keep them hygienic.

Duvets

  • When: Every three to four months, depending on usage and whether pets or children share your bed.

  • Why: Even with a cover, body oils and mites eventually seep into the filling.

  • How: Check the label: many duvets are machine-washable, others may require professional cleaning.

Your bed may look clean – but it’s teeming with microbes, allergens, mites and irritants that build up fast. Washing your bedding isn’t just about keeping things fresh; it’s a matter of health.

Regular laundering removes the biological soup of sweat, skin, dust and microbes, which helps to reduce allergic reactions, prevent infections and keep odours at bay. And as research continues to show the profound effect of sleep on everything from heart health to mental clarity, a hygienic sleep environment is a small but powerful investment in your wellbeing.

So go ahead – strip the bed. Wash those sheets. Freeze your pillows. Your microbes (and your sinuses) will thank you.

Sweet dreams – and happy laundering.

The Conversation

Primrose Freestone does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. How often should you really be washing your bedding? A microbiologist explains – https://theconversation.com/how-often-should-you-really-be-washing-your-bedding-a-microbiologist-explains-256516

Undersea cables are vulnerable to sabotage – but this takes skill and specialist equipment

Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Aitken, Associate, RAND Europe, RAND Europe

Countries have come to rely on a network of cables and pipes under the sea for their energy and communications. So it has been worrying to read headlines about communications cables being cut and, in one case, an undersea gas pipeline being blown up..

Critical undersea infrastructure (CUI) as these connections are known, supports about US$9 trillion (£6.6 trillion) worth of trade per day. A coordinated attack on this network could undoubtedly have devastating consequences.

But, as a former submarine commander who researches maritime security, I believe that attacking and disrupting the network is not as easy as some reports might make it appear. Deliberately snagging a pipeline with a dragging anchor in relatively shallow waters can cause a lot of damage, but it is fairly indiscriminate trick with a shelf life, since the damage can be repaired, and deniability becomes increasingly difficult.

Targeting the cable networks in deeper waters require more sophisticated methods, which are much more challenging to carry out.

A hostile state wishing to attack this network first needs to locate the cables they wish to target. The majority of the newer commercial cables are very clearly charted, but their positions are not exact.


Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


Cables and pipelines, even the heaviest ones, will drift somewhat as they are laid, and the deeper the water they sit in, the greater the distance they may drift.

Those newer cables are often buried in a shallow trench to protect them, which
makes locating and accessing them more challenging. Older cables were laid in slightly less exact navigational times, some before the GPS network was
available for civilian use. They are not in pristine or predictable patterns.

The positions of cables used by the military are generally not advertised at all, for reasons of security. Locating the target cable requires a detailed
understanding of the topography and features of the seabed. That sort of picture can only be built up by survey and reconnaissance.

Accurately surveying the seabed takes time and significant effort. And to get certainty of the picture, the survey or reconnaissance operation needs to be conducted in overlapping rows. This is painstaking work which is conditional upon the state of the sea.

Specialist equipment

Identifying a cable against the seabed or in the trench in which it lies requires a sonar resolution of something in the order of one or two metres, requiring specialist equipment.

In 2024, several submarine telecommunications cables were disrupted in the Baltic Sea. Although there had been suspicions about ships dragging their anchors to damage the cables, authorities were not able to confirm this. The damage has not been conclusively attributed to a third party.

There have been fears about “hybrid warfare”: deniable actions taken another nation that are enough to cause disruption, but are not enough to be an attributable act of war.

In 2017, the UK chief of the defence staff said that Russia posed a threat to undersea cables. Russia has spent considerable money, time and effort in developing the
platforms and capabilities that could target undersea infrastructure, if the country so wished.

An organisation called the Main Directorate of Deep-Sea Research (GUGI) operates deep-diving nuclear submarines, as well as a survey ship that is equipped with a deep diving submersible capable of operating at 6,000 metres.

Russian navy

The Russian navy also operates survey vessels such as the Akademik Vladimirsky. The precise sensors that the ship is equipped with are unknown – but in a 2012 research expedition to the South Pole it deployed a proton magnetometer, which can be used to discover metallic objects on the seabed such as pipelines.

However, there is no suggestion that these survey vessels have been involved in disrupting undersea infrastructure. Nevertheless, operations by such vessels do not go unobserved by the west. Indicators and warnings of their deployments can be gained from imagery, and western submarines are capable of tracking and observing their patrols.

The threat posed to Europe’s critical undersea infrastructure is real, and the consequences of a successful attack could be catastrophic. But this is a difficult business in a very challenging environment.

The most acute threat is in the littoral (shore zone), where cables make landfall and in the shallows around those landing places. Protecting these chokepoints should be a top priority.

That, in turn, requires adequate numbers of attack submarines capable of
monitoring and, if necessary, deterring or disrupting hostile activity. Vigilance,
investment, and realism – not alarmism – will be the foundation of a credible undersea defence.

The Conversation

John Aitken does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Undersea cables are vulnerable to sabotage – but this takes skill and specialist equipment – https://theconversation.com/undersea-cables-are-vulnerable-to-sabotage-but-this-takes-skill-and-specialist-equipment-259417

US backs Nato’s latest pledge of support for Ukraine, but in reality seems to have abandoned its European partners

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

Recent news from Ukraine has generally been bad. Since the end of May, ever larger Russian air strikes have been documented against Ukrainian cities with devastating consequences for civilians, including in the country’s capital, Kyiv.

Amid small and costly but steady gains along the almost 1,000km long frontline, Russia reportedly took full control of the Ukrainian region of Luhansk, part of which it had already occupied before the beginning of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

And according to Dutch and German intelligence reports, some of Russia’s gains on the battlefield are enabled by the widespread use of chemical weapons.


Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


It was therefore something of a relief that Nato’s summit in The Hague produced a short joint declaration on June 25 in which Russia was clearly named as a “long-term threat … to Euro-Atlantic security”. Member states restated “their enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine”. While the summit declaration made no mention of future Nato membership for Ukraine, the fact that US president Donald Trump agreed to these two statements was widely seen as a success.

Yet, within a week of the summit, Washington paused the delivery of critical weapons to Ukraine, including Patriot air defence missiles and long-range precision-strike rockets. The move was ostensibly in response to depleting US stockpiles.

This despite the Pentagon’s own analysis, which suggested that the shipment – authorised by the former US president Joe Biden last year – posed no risk to US ammunition supplies.

This was bad news for Ukraine. The halt in supplies weakens Kyiv’s ability to protect its large population centres and critical infrastructure against intensifying Russian airstrikes. It also puts limits on Ukraine’s ability to target Russian supply lines and logistics hubs behind the frontlines that have been enabling ground advances.

Despite protests from Ukraine and an offer from Germany to buy Patriot missiles from the US for Ukraine, Trump has been in no rush to reverse the decision by the Pentagon.

ISW map showing the state of the conflict in Ukraine, July 6 2025
Russia is now claiming to have completed its occupation of the province of Luhansk in eastern Ukraine.
Institute for the Study of War

Another phone call with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, on July 3, failed to change Trump’s mind, even though he acknowledged his disappointment with the clear lack of willingness by the Kremlin to stop the fighting. What’s more, within hours of the call between the two presidents, Moscow launched the largest drone attack of the war against Kyiv.

A day later, Trump spoke with Zelensky. And while the call between them was apparently productive, neither side gave any indication that US weapons shipments to Ukraine would resume quickly.

Trump previously paused arms shipments and intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March, 2025 after his acrimonious encounter with Zelensky in the Oval Office. But the US president reversed course after certain concessions had been agreed – whether that was an agreement by Ukraine to an unconditional ceasefire or a deal on the country’s minerals.

It is not clear with the current disruption whether Trump is after yet more concessions from Ukraine. The timing is ominous, coming after what had appeared to be a productive Nato summit with a unified stance on Russia’s war of aggression. And it preceded Trump’s call with Putin.

This could be read as a signal that Trump was still keen to accommodate at least some of the Russian president’s demands in exchange for the necessary concessions from the Kremlin to agree, finally, the ceasefire that Trump had once envisaged he could achieve in 24 hours.

If this is indeed the case, the fact that Trump continues to misread the Russian position is deeply worrying. The Kremlin has clearly drawn its red lines on what it is after in any peace deal with Ukraine.

These demands – virtually unchanged since the beginning of the war – include a lifting of sanctions against Russia and no Nato membership for Ukraine, while also insisting that Kyiv must accept limits on its future military forces and recognise Russia’s annexation of Crimea and four regions on the Ukrainian mainland.

This will not change as a result of US concessions to Russia but only through pressure on Putin. And Trump has so far been unwilling to apply pressure in a concrete and meaningful way beyond the occasional hints to the press or on social media.

Coalition of the willing

It is equally clear that Russia’s maximalist demands are unacceptable to Ukraine and its European allies. With little doubt that the US can no longer be relied upon to back the European and Ukrainian position, Kyiv and Europe need to accelerate their own defence efforts.

A European coalition of the willing to do just that is slowly taking shape. It straddles the once more rigid boundaries of EU and Nato membership and non-membership, involving countries such as Moldova, Norway and the UK.
and including non-European allies including Canada, Japan and South Korea.

The European commission’s white paper on European defence is an obvious indication that the threat from Russia and the needs of Ukraine are being taken seriously and, crucially, acted upon. It mobilises some €800 billion (£690 billion) in defence spending and will enable deeper integration of the Ukrainian defence sector with that of the European Union.

At the national level, key European allies, in particular Germany, have also committed to increased defence spending and stepped up their forward deployment of forces closer to the borders with Russia.

US equivocation will not mean that Ukraine is now on the brink of losing the war against Russia. Nor will Europe discovering its spine on defence put Kyiv immediately in a position to defeat Moscow’s aggression.

After decades of relying on the US and neglecting their own defence capabilities, these recent European efforts are a first step in the right direction. They will not turn Europe into a military heavyweight overnight. But they will buy time to do so.

The Conversation

Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

ref. US backs Nato’s latest pledge of support for Ukraine, but in reality seems to have abandoned its European partners – https://theconversation.com/us-backs-natos-latest-pledge-of-support-for-ukraine-but-in-reality-seems-to-have-abandoned-its-european-partners-260334

What people really want from their GP – it’s simpler than you might think

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Helen Atherton, Professor of Primary Care Research, University of Southampton

Stephen Barnes/Shutterstock.com

Booking a GP appointment is a routine task, yet for many people it’s a source of frustration. Long waits, confusing systems and impersonal processes have become all too familiar. While much attention has been paid to how difficult it is to get an appointment, less research has asked a more fundamental question: what do patients actually want from their general practice?

To answer this, my colleagues and I reviewed 33 studies that were a mixture of study designs, and focused on patients’ expectations and preferences regarding access to their GP in England and Scotland.

What people wanted was not complicated or cutting edge. People were looking for connection; a friendly receptionist and good communication from the practice about how they could expect to make an appointment. And they wanted a general practice in their own neighbourhood with clean, calm waiting rooms. So far, so simple.


Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


People wanted booking systems that were simple and user-friendly, without long automated phone menus (“press one for reception”). Preferences varied. Some patients valued the option to book appointments in person at the reception desk, while others preferred the convenience of online booking.

Regardless of how they booked, patients wanted shorter waiting times or, at least, clear information about when they could expect an appointment or a callback.

Ideally, general practice would be open on Saturdays and Sundays for those who cannot attend during the week.

Remote consultations – by phone, video or email – have become more common since the pandemic, and many patients found them helpful. For those with caring responsibilities or mobility issues, they offered a convenient way to access care without needing to leave home.

However, remote appointments weren’t suitable for everyone. Some patients lacked privacy at work, while others – particularly those with hearing impairments – found telephone consultations difficult or impossible to use.

What patients consistently wanted was choice, particularly when it came to remote consultations. While in-person appointments were seen as the gold standard, many recognised that telephone or video consultations could be useful in certain situations. Preferences varied widely, which made the ability to choose the type of consultation especially important.

Patients also wanted choice over who they saw, especially for non-urgent issues or when managing ongoing health conditions.

In today’s general practice, care is often delivered by a range of professionals, including nurses, pharmacists and physiotherapists. While many patients were open to seeing different healthcare professionals, older adults and people from minority ethnic backgrounds were more likely to prefer seeing a GP.

Overall, patients wanted the option to choose a GP over another healthcare professional – or at least be involved in that decision.

Satisfaction at all-time low

Unsurprisingly, what patients want from general practice varies, reflecting different lifestyles, needs and circumstances. But what was equally clear is that many people are not able to get what they want from the appointment system.

According to a recent British Social Attitudes survey, patient satisfaction with general practice is at an all-time low, with just below one in three people reporting that they are very or quite satisfied with GP services.

Some elements of the UK government’s recently announced ten-year plan for the NHS in England may address some of these concerns, but it remains far from certain. The emphasis on the NHS app as a “doctor in your pocket” does not align with what many patients are asking for: genuine choice over whether they access care online or in person.




Read more:
NHS ten-year plan for England: what’s in it and what’s needed to make it work


A mobile phone showing the NHS app.
Not everyone wants a doctor in their pocket.
NHS/Shutterstock.com

The proposal to open neighbourhood health centres on weekends could benefit those who need more flexible access. However, simply increasing the number of appointments misses the point: patients want more than just availability. They want care that is accessible, personalised and responsive to their individual needs.

The evidence is clear and the solutions simple, yet patient satisfaction remains at an all-time low. The government must stop assuming technology is the answer and start listening to what patients are actually telling them. The cost of ignoring their voices is a healthcare system that serves no one well.

The Conversation

Helen Atherton receives funding from the National Institute for Health Research and the Research Council of Norway.

ref. What people really want from their GP – it’s simpler than you might think – https://theconversation.com/what-people-really-want-from-their-gp-its-simpler-than-you-might-think-260520

Georgia: how democracy is being eroded fast as government shifts towards Russia

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex

Georgia was once considered a post-Soviet success story. After years of authoritarian rule, followed by independence which brought near state collapse, corruption and chaos, Georgia appeared to have transitioned to democracy.

In a period after independence in 1991 and before 2020, elections were regularly held and were deemed mostly free and fair, the media and civil society were vibrant and corruption levels had diminished significantly.

The “Rose revolution” in 2003 ushered in an era of unprecedented reform and suggested a move towards democracy and a closer relationship with the west. Georgians were full of hope for the country’s future, and prospects of joining the European Union – or at least moving closer to Europe.

Fast forward two decades and Georgia has fully returned to authoritarianism. Six opposition leaders are in prison or facing charges and now thinktank leaders are being targeted with investigations that could land them in prison. Typically these charges centre around accepting foreign funding or criticising the government.


Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


In moves in line with other authoritarian regimes around the world, opposition organisations such as thinktanks are being told to produce financial documents in short timeframes, and accused of financial mismanagement and threatened with prosecution if they don’t.

In May 2024, Georgia passed a Russian-inspired foreign agent law — which would require non-governmental organisations (NGOs) receiving foreign funding to register themselves and face restrictions. Protests erupted each time Georgia’s parliament debated this measure, but eventually the pro-RussianGeorgia Dream party prevailed. More than 90% of NGOs receive funding from abroad, so the new law cripples the efforts of some 26,000 of them.

Many Georgians were outraged that the passage of the bill may end dreams of one day becoming a European Union candidate country. Regular surveys have found that about 80% of Georgians have aspirations for their country to join the EU.

Though Georgia faces a host of economic problems, the Georgia Dream party has campaigned on delivering a return to traditional values. Like Russia they have also passed a series of laws in 2024 that target the LGBTQ+ community, such as banning content that features same-sex relationships and stripping same-sex couples of rights, such as adoption.

Parallels with Russia?

Georgia Dream also passed legislation making treason a criminal offence, a clear attempt to eliminate political opponents. Any insults of politicians online are also considered a criminal offence.

Also, in June of this year civil society organisations in Georgia received court orders requiring them to disclose highly sensitive data. Meanwhile, members of the Georgia Dream party were accused of assaulting opposition party leader Giorgi Gakharia suffering a broken nose and a concussion, which they denied.

In another effort to exercise greater control over the state, since the beginning of this year more than 800 civil servants have been dismissed. Similar to the purges that took place in Turkey — this is not being done in the name of efficiency, but to ensure that the bureaucracy is loyal to wishes of the Georgia Dream government.

This hasn’t happened overnight, as the laws had already changed several times to weaken legal protections for civil servants.

During its time in government, the Georgia Dream party has moved the country much closer to Russia, often by portraying the nation as locked in a cultural struggle against the west. Despite this, 69% of Georgians still see Russia as Georgia’s main enemy, up from 35% in 2012.

Though the Georgia Dream party faces increasing public opposition to its rule, it gained nearly the same amount of votes in the 2024 elections as it did in 2012 – when it was at its peak of popularity. The election result in October 2024 may be partly explained by accusations of fraud and other irregularities.

How did this happen?

One of the first big threats to Georgia’s democracy came in August 2008 when Russia invaded the country to offer support for two breakaway regions in South Ossetia and Abkhazia which declared themselves independent from Georgia. The international community did little to censure Russia, giving Russian president Vladimir Putin the confidence to engage in further acts of aggression.

Russia has maintained troops in South Ossetia, only about 30 miles from Georgia’s capital Tbilisi, and continues to play an important role in Georgian politics, undermining democracy.

The next threat came from within. Billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili was elected prime minister of Georgia in 2012 as the leader of Georgia Dream. despite the fact that he officially stepped down from this position in 2013, he has wielded power behind the scenes and is still widely considered to be the de facto leader of Georgia.

Though Georgia did not immediately slide towards autocracy under the Georgia Dream party, today there are few remnants of democracy left. The major opposition parties are banned, opposition politicians and journalists are spied on, and protests are repressed by the police.

Cameras are now installed on the streets of Tbilisi as part of a crackdown on protest and fines for protesting have increased. Elections are no longer considered to be free and fair by the European Union and others as the Georgia Dream party uses its access to the state resources to dole out patronage to its supporters and intimidate voters.

In just over two decades, Georgia has managed to plunge back to authoritarianism. Once hailed as a beacon of democratic reform, the country is now gripped by a Russian-influenced ruling party that has consolidated power through repression, surveillance and manipulation.

But while the Georgia Dream party has tried to dismantle the country’s democratic institutions, support for resistance is high. According to a poll in 2025, more than 60% of respondents supported protests against the government and 45% identified as active supporters. And 82% feel Georgia is in crisis, with 78% blaming Georgian Dream.

It appears that Russia may have succeeded in undermining democracy in Georgia, but not in shaping hearts and minds.

The Conversation

Natasha Lindstaedt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Georgia: how democracy is being eroded fast as government shifts towards Russia – https://theconversation.com/georgia-how-democracy-is-being-eroded-fast-as-government-shifts-towards-russia-260430

What schools can learn from skate culture

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sander Hölsgens, Assistant Professor, Leiden Institute of Cultural Anthropology and Development Sociology, Leiden University

Dean Drobot/Shutterstock

At a school in Malmö, Sweden, skateboarding is on the curriculum. John Dahlquist, vice principal of Bryggeriets High School, teaches skate classes and brings lessons from skateboarding into other subjects. By encouraging teenagers to have fun together through skating and beyond, he notices that they want to attend school. Writing in a recent book I co-edited on skateboarding and teaching, Dahlquist notes that he even sees students longing to be back in the classroom after the weekend.

Skateboarding is creative, requiring ingenuity in adapting to new environments. It’s collaborative and social: skaters cheer each other on when they try to learn something new, acknowledging that everyone operates at a different level and faces a distinct challenge.

When skateboarding is done well, individual growth takes place among a community of care and mutual support. And it requires a willingness to fail. There’s no way to master a trick without trying and failing, over and over again.

My colleagues and I have researched the value of a skateboarding philosophy in schools, and how teachers can bring it into their classrooms.


Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


Take Dahlquist’s teaching in Malmö. He notes that interweaving skate classes with other subjects has multiple noteworthy effects. The physical activity of skateboarding improves levels of concentration. Some students even say that they’d never been successful in any other learning environment. Elsewhere, they’d be unable to focus on the task at hand.

What’s more, a skateboarding mindset – being prepared to learn difficult tricks in unfamiliar settings – equipped students with the capacity to master other kinds of new skills.

Able to fail

The process of overcoming the anxiety to fail is crucial. Skaters cannot be afraid to fall if they want to learn new tricks. The motivation to learn through repeated efforts helps skaters in other areas of life, too. Skaters at Bryggeriet aren’t worried as much about failing grades, precisely because they see it as an opportunity to learn and move forward.

As Dahlquist says, “At the end of my classes, I usually have to throw my students out of the classroom. A lot of them beg for three more tries: ‘I’ve got this, just give me three more tries. I promise I will learn.‘”

This mindset decreases grades as education’s cornerstone and, by extension, enhances students’ mental health. My colleague Esther Sayers, who conducted fieldwork at Bryggeriets, found another effect. Teachers help students to develop the skills to get motivated, to reach a point of feeling inspired – or what skaters call “stoke”.

Young people laughing with skateboard
Skateboarding fosters a non-competitive learning culture.
PeopleImages.com – Yuri A

Bryggeriets High School isn’t the only place where skateboarding is helping teach people how to learn. Reaching beyond its historical status as a self-regulated street culture, skateboarding now plays an important role in building engaged learning communities across the globe. Berlin-based skate organisation Skateistan hosts skate classes, gives young people access to education and offers funds for young and upcoming community leaders.

Concrete Jungle Foundation co-builds skateparks with young people in Peru, Morocco and Jamaica, in order to exchange knowledge and drive local ownership and apprenticeship. Similarly, the New York-based Harold Hunter Foundation runs skate workshops that also provide mentoring and career guidance.

Colleagues Arianna Gil and Jessica Forsyth have studied working class black and Latin American skate crews, run by genderdiverse community organisers. They found that skate crews such as Brujas and Gang Corp mobilise skaters according to the “for us, by us” spirit.

Challenging institutional models of authority, these skate crews develop services based on the hopes and aspirations of their communities – ranging from teach-ins to recreational programmes. This includes a talk on the history and meaning of hoodies, and modules on the power of storytelling and the danger of propaganda. The crux, here, is to learn about stuff you encounter in your daily lives.

Skaters who experience poverty and oppression create their own ecosystem for learning from one another, from being out of an educational system that is organised in a top-down way. This means creating a grassroots school model where skate crews choose what and how they want to learn. Rather than grades and degrees, education here is structured around the process of learning from your peers – with the idea of passing on this knowledge in the near future.

The effects of this approach are threefold. First, it centers mentorship and apprenticeship, resulting in intergenerational knowledge exchange. Second, skateboarding’s DIY spirit can help overcome access barriers. By embracing grassroots teaching practices and formats, education can be tailored to the specific needs and desires of a community, rather than following standardised learning objectives.

Third, rather than focusing on memorising facts or learning for grades, this new ecosystem is structured around problem-based learning. Presented with worldly problems such as human rights violations and hostile architecture, skaters learn not just how to analyse their surroundings, but also how to cope with and engage oppressive societal structures.

As formal education faces incremental budget cuts and deepened governmental influence, skateboarding shows us new ways to organise our learning spaces. Schools and teachers can engage their students by integrating aspects of a learning culture that decentres evaluations and assessments and celebrates attempts, rather than just successes.

The Conversation

Sander Hölsgens received a ‘starting grant’ from OCW, The Netherlands. He is affiliated with Pushing Boarders, a platform tracing the social impact of skateboarding worldwide.

ref. What schools can learn from skate culture – https://theconversation.com/what-schools-can-learn-from-skate-culture-255239

Nature-friendly farming budget swells in UK – but cuts elsewhere make recovery fraught

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nathalie Seddon, Professor of Biodiversity, Smith School of Enterprise and Environment and Department of Biology, University of Oxford

Skylarks are a red-listed species, which means they are of high conservation concern in the UK. WildlifeWorld/Shutterstock

Nature in the UK appeared to receive a rare funding boost in the June spending review, with the government setting a spending target of up to £2 billion a year for England’s environmental land management (ELM) scheme by 2028-29.

By steering public funds toward farmers who restore hedgerows, soils and wetlands, England’s ELM programme is meant to renew landscapes that absorb carbon, support pollinators and keep water clean while helping rural businesses stay viable in a changing climate.

If delivered in full, the package would elevate the UK’s post-Brexit model of investing public money in shared ecological care (rather than payments based on acreage) to one of the most generously funded in the world.

Yet, scrutinise the details and a more complicated story emerges.


Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


The review has trimmed the day-to-day budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in real terms. Defra now faces the unenviable task of signing and monitoring thousands of new ELM agreements with fewer staff and shrinking data resources. Without the capacity to check whether fields really have become richer in skylarks or streams clearer of fertiliser, large sums could be delayed or misdirected.

Scale is another challenge. An independent analysis published in 2024 estimated that roughly £6 billion every year across the UK is needed to bring agriculture in line with the Environment Act targets for habitat restoration and net zero commitments.

Even the full £2 billion promised for England would meet only about half of that evidence-based need. And the “up to” £400 million for trees and peatlands is not new money: it is funding that was first promised in 2024 and the payment schedule has still not been confirmed.

A woodland clearing.
Money could be paid to farmers for allowing woodlands to regenerate.
Richard Hepworth, CC BY

While the review earmarked £4.2 billion for flood and coastal defence, it does not specify how much of that will support nature-based measures such as floodplain restoration, or the creation of saltmarshes or riparian woodlands. The Environment Agency is consulting on a funding model that could embed such solutions, but the Treasury papers are silent on who will pay for that shift.

Tech spending dwarfs habitat investment

Contrast this with the sums heading to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

Roughly £30 billion is earmarked for nuclear fission, fusion research and carbon-capture hubs. These projects are heavy on concrete and steel (materials with a hefty carbon cost) but have no immediate ecological benefit.

While new low-carbon technologies are crucial, thriving and resilient soils, wetlands and woodlands nourish food systems, safeguard water and hold vast stores of carbon – benefits that deepen and become more cost-effective over time.

Nature-based solutions can also revitalise local economies. The Office for National Statistics estimates that replacing the benefits flowing from the UK’s forests, rivers and soils – flood buffering, crop pollination, cleaner air, recreation and more – would cost about £1.8 trillion, a figure that only hints at their deeper, immeasurable value.

Yet the review sets out no plan to safeguard these life-support systems, or to factor their decline into the Treasury’s green book (the rule book used to appraise public investments) or the Bank of England’s stress tests, which check how shocks could ripple through the financial system.

This is also a matter of fairness and public health. Growing evidence shows that regular contact with nature lowers the risks of heart disease and anxiety, while improving children’s cognitive development. These are benefits with a value that defies any price tag.

Yet the places with the fewest trees and parks tend to be the same post-industrial towns ministers want to “level up”. The review is silent on biodiversity net gain (the flagship policy meant to channel private finance into local habitats) and on a proposed national nature wealth fund that could blend public and private capital for large-scale restoration.

Housing money could repeat past mistakes

One line in the spending review could still shift the balance.

The chancellor has earmarked £39 billion for building social and affordable housing over the next decade. If every development delivers at least a 10% net gain for biodiversity onsite, and if schemes build in climate-smart design (living roofs, shade-giving street trees, permeable surfaces) with local residents, Britain could pioneer the world’s first large-scale, nature-positive, net-zero housing programme.

Without those safeguards, “levelling up” risks repeating old mistakes: sealing green space under concrete today and paying tomorrow to retrofit drainage, shade and parks.

Two new-build homes.
Green space is scarce on this new housing estate near Cardiff, Wales.
Shutterstock

That risk is heightened by the government’s planning and infrastructure bill, now before parliament. In an open letter to MPs, economists and ecologists warn that the bill would let developers “pay cash to trash” irreplaceable habitats by swapping onsite protection for a levy, a move they describe as a “licence to kill nature”.

At the next UN climate summit, Cop30 in Brazil in November 2025, the UK will have to show the world that its domestic spending matches its international rhetoric.

More than 150 UK researchers made that point in an open letter to the prime minister, urging him to put nature at the centre of the UK’s Cop30 stance. Converting the Treasury’s headline figures into habitat gains and locking robust rules into both the planning bill and the housing drive would give ministers credible proof of progress when they update the UK’s climate and nature pledges on the Cop30 stage.

The spending review may have nudged farm policy in the right direction and set a new higher water mark for nature-positive agriculture. Yet amid the squeeze on Defra, the recycling rather than expansion of tree and peat budgets and the continued dominance of technology over habitat, nature still comes a distant second to hard infrastructure in the UK growth model.

There is still time to change course. Guaranteeing Defra’s capacity, publishing a timetable for the tree-and-peat fund, reserving part of the flood budget for community-led nature-based solutions and hardwiring strong biodiversity net gain rules into housing and planning reforms would turn headline promises into projects that enrich daily life while stewarding public money wisely.


Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


The Conversation

Nathalie Seddon receives funding from UKRI and the Leverhulme Trust and sits on the UK Climate Change Committee. She is also a trustee of the Circular Bioeconomy Alliance and is a non-executive director of the social venture, Nature-based Insights.

ref. Nature-friendly farming budget swells in UK – but cuts elsewhere make recovery fraught – https://theconversation.com/nature-friendly-farming-budget-swells-in-uk-but-cuts-elsewhere-make-recovery-fraught-259091

US labels QRIS a trade barrier – what’s next for Indonesia’s digital payment system?

Source: The Conversation – France (in French) – By Farhan Mutaqin, PhD Researcher, University of Edinburgh

The United States has recently called out Indonesia’s national digital payment system QRIS (Quick Response Code Indonesian Standard) for being unfair. The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) assessed QRIS as a trade barrier in its the National Trade Estimate Report 2025. The report – which includes broader trade concerns – underpins the Trump administration’s plan to impose 32% tariff duty for Indonesian products as of July 2025.

QRIS synchronises Indonesia’s electronic money payments, digital wallets, and mobile banking into one national standard system. By scanning a QR code, payment takes only a matter of seconds, allowing a swift cashless transaction compared to using cards.

USTR report criticises how QRIS implementation limits access for international stakeholders — particularly US companies — and creates an imbalance in Indonesia’s digital payments market.

The report also cites Indonesia’s National Payment Gateway (GPN) as less transparent and limits foreign ownership. The card, which is for domestic use only, eases administrative financial burdens, encourages cashless payment and facilitate social disbursement of social assistance.

Putting the trade assessment aside, QRIS helps small businesses and low-income groups in Indonesia to access modern payment facilities, closing the gap that Visa and Mastercard cannot provide. Throughout 2024, more than 30 million small businesses and merchants across Indonesia have made transactions via QRIS.

Here are what readers need to know about QRIS and what may come for Indonesia after its labelling as a trade barrier.

How significant is QRIS?

QRIS transaction value and popularity have skyrocketed since the central bank, Bank Indonesia, introduced it to the market in August 2019, months away before COVID-19 entered Indonesia. Throughout 2024 QRIS has recorded 2.2 billion transactions with a total value of Rp 242 trillion (around US$14.9 billion). This figure increased by 188% compared to the previous year.

In the first quarter of 2025, Bank Indonesia’s latest report noted that QRIS transactions surged to 2.6 billion with a transaction value reaching Rp 262 trillion (US$16 billion).

So, why does QRIS have such a huge reputation?

Massive digital adoption and user convenience factors triggered its growth, contributing to financial inclusion and supporting the growth and productivity of the Indonesian economy.

According to 2024 survey, the main reasons Indonesians use QRIS are its simplicity (49%) and transaction speed (42%). Promotion factors (33%) and the habit of not carrying cash (28%) also add to its appeal.

Wide outlet coverage (23%) and perceived security (22%) are also factors causing QRIS to be increasingly in demand. This practicality and growing digital habits in Indonesia are the main drivers of QRIS adoption.

From the merchant’s perspective, QRIS has advantages over card payments. The card system requires expensive EDC machines that cost Rp 3–5 million (US$180-310) per device.

Meanwhile, the merchant can receive payments via QRIS with just a single printed QR code, without needing extra equipment. QRIS transaction fees are also much lower at around 0.3% of transactions (even 0% for micro merchants), compared to 2–3% on cards.

QRIS is also compatible with all Indonesian and most of ASEAN countries e-wallets.

According to the Indonesian Payment System Association QRIS has become “the king of digital payment” channels for local transactions. Meanwhile, Visa–Mastercard’s position remains dominant for cross-border payments.

Risk of QRIS blocking

The USTR claims developed without input from international stakeholders may serve as an empty accusation.

Bank Indonesia designed QRIS to meet domestic needs while aligning with international standards like EMVCo standards carried by Europay, Mastercard, and Visa (EMV). The three global payment giants are also members of Indonesian Payment System Association and were involved in QRIS drafting process, accompanying the government and the central bank. Given how strictly regulated digital payment systems are, it’s hard to believe the US lacks information about QRIS.

However, the label of “trade barriers” has already been attached by the US and could ruin Indonesia’s negotiation process with other countries.

First, this issue could potentially hamper QRIS adoption in other countries. While Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand have already facilitated QRIS into their national payment systems, further expansion into India and South Korea could be hampered by concerns about creating friction with Washington.

Second, the classification of QRIS as a trade barrier could also hinder the expansion of Indonesian small businesses into overseas markets. In fact, this standard was designed so that micro and small business actors can speed up the transaction process, including cross-border transactions with foreign buyers.

Advantage or disadvantage?

Both. It brings opportunities and challenges. The impact of USTR claim for Indonesia will depend largely on its negotiating strategy in the coming terms.

For now, the 32%-tariff sanction – affecting products from shoes, textiles, to nickel components – has been suspended until early July 2025. The two countries are continuing negotiations, including technical discussions on QRIS access since the US complaint aired.

But Indonesia can turn the US protest into an opportunity. The threat of tariffs forced the two countries into a two-month negotiation window.

Indonesia could trade off small adjustments to QRIS rules for larger rewards —such as lower tariffs on nickel products or new investment commitments from the US, especially in the fields of technology or the latest financial systems.

At least, Bank Indonesia has stated that “If America is ready, we are ready,” – a nod for possibility to prepare clearer guidelines for both countries. Arranging such documents will benefit all parties, including foreign and local business.

At last, Indonesia needs to share the success story of QRIS more widely. Currently, QRIS has served 56 million users, supports payments at more than 33 million outlets, and is seamlessly connected to several countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. This shows that the payment system is open, beneficial, and contributes to financial integration across countries and regions.

QRIS’s rapid growth, along with how the US feels threatened by it, shows huge potential for Indonesia’s digital finance. This can actually contribute to its bargaining position in the international arena in this digital era.


This article was originally published in Indonesian, translated into English with the help of machine translator and further edited by human editors.

The Conversation

Para penulis tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi di luar afiliasi akademis yang telah disebut di atas.

ref. US labels QRIS a trade barrier – what’s next for Indonesia’s digital payment system? – https://theconversation.com/us-labels-qris-a-trade-barrier-whats-next-for-indonesias-digital-payment-system-257616

Journal indexation: The misconception of guaranteed quality

Source: The Conversation – France (in French) – By Ilham Akhsanu Ridlo, Assistant professor, Universitas Airlangga

Higher education institutions and research institutes are no strangers to commercial scientific journal indexers such as Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). These platforms serve as primary benchmarks for academic success and research performance evaluation. Within the scientific community, indexers function as a credibility currency for research’s perceived prestige and reliability.

This requirement has led to the misconception that indexation equates to research quality — while it does not necessarily guarantee high-quality research.

The indexation process merely demonstrates compliance with administrative requirements set by indexers. These include a peer review system, transparent editorial policies, and properly structured metadata or supporting data.

In other words, journal indexation alone cannot serve as the sole metric for research performance. Instead, evaluation systems should prioritise impact-driven indicators.

Journal indexation vs research quality

There are many factors that contribute to research quality, including the compatibility between the research question and the chosen methodology, the integrity and transparency of the research process, and the accessibility of data or supplementary research materials (such as datasets, methods of analysis, and research logs). Peer review processes typically evaluate these aspects.

Take Nature journal, for example. This prestigious publication retracted an article titled A Specific Amyloid-ß Protein Assembly in the Brain Impairs Memory in 2024 after it was proven that the lead researcher had manipulated images. Unfortunately, before the retraction, the article had already been cited 2,375 times and accessed by more than 74,000 readers.

According to the indexer Web of Science, Nature has an impact factor of 50.5 and is classified in journal quartile Q1 (18.51) in the ScimagoJR indexer (Scopus) under the multidisciplinary category.

Despite being widely regarded as a reputable reference, bibliometric indicators — statistical analyses of published books and articles — have inherent limitations.

For instance, the impact factor only measures the average number of citations per article in a journal over the past two years. However, citation distribution is often uneven — while some articles receive many citations, others may receive none. As a result, the impact factor does not necessarily reflect the overall quality of all published articles in a given journal.

The misconception impacts

This misconception about journal quality has negatively affected the academic climate, particularly in developing countries like Indonesia. Many policies prioritise the quantity of publications and citation rates over research quality.

As a result, policymakers in higher education and research direct academics to focus on topics with global appeal to increase their chances of publication in indexed journals recognised by international indexing institutions.

Regrettably, this trend often leads to the neglect of local social and humanities issues, such as environmental sustainability and community-based problems, which are considered less appealing to an international audience.

The pressure to publish in indexed journals also increases the risk of unethical academic practices. Misconduct such as plagiarism, data fabrication, and ‘salami slicing’ — the practice of splitting a single study into multiple smaller papers to inflate publication counts — has become more prevalent. In fact, paper mills—cartels of publishing companies that sell fabricated scientific articles — are a documented issue.

These practices not only damage researchers’ credibility but also undermine the integrity of the academic community as a whole. As publicly funded institutions, universities and research institutes must prioritise disseminating inclusive and impactful knowledge to society.

What are the alternatives?

Research quality appraisal requires a more inclusive and holistic paradigm to counter the negative effects of indexation-based performance evaluation. Several global science initiatives advocate for such changes, including the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), launched in 2012, the Leiden Manifesto in 2021, and the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (COARA) in 2023.

Reforming academic policies at both institutional and national levels is crucial to fostering a thriving research ecosystem. Relevant ministries must promote evaluation systems that prioritise research impact, while bibliometric indicators should serve as complementary rather than primary assessment tools.

Governments and academic institutions can also offer incentives for research that addresses strategic national issues rather than focusing solely on indexation standards.

Additionally, academic institutions should enhance capacity-building programmes for journal editors and researchers, including training in academic writing and editorial management. This approach can help local journals meet international standards while retaining their unique identity.

Transparency is equally vital. One concrete step is facilitating researchers’ storage of raw data and related materials in the National Scientific Repository (RIN), ensuring public accessibility.

Scientific articles undergoing peer review can also be shared as pre-prints, allowing the public to read and provide feedback. For publicly funded research, adhering to transparency principles demonstrates the researcher’s accountability to the society that finances their work.

While journal indexation improves the accessibility of scientific articles, it should not be the sole performance metric — let alone a measure of research quality. Relying on bibliometric indicators as a ‘shortcut’ for performance appraisal could ultimately reduce the research’s relevance and societal impact in Indonesia.


Kezia Kevina Harmoko contributes in this translation process

The Conversation

Ilham Akhsanu Ridlo tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.

ref. Journal indexation: The misconception of guaranteed quality – https://theconversation.com/journal-indexation-the-misconception-of-guaranteed-quality-250829