You may be unaware of the celestial wonder known as OJ 287 but, as you will see, it is one of the most outlandish objects in the cosmos. OUPblog - Academic insights for the thinking world.
You may be unaware of the celestial wonder known as OJ 287 but, as you will see, it is one of the most outlandish objects in the cosmos. Astronomers have known of periodic eruptions from OJ 287 since 1888 and in recent decades a mind-boggling explanation has emerged. It seems that the outbursts arise deep in the heart of a distant galaxy where two supermassive black holes are locked in a deadly embrace.
What is a black hole?
A black hole forms when a huge quantity of matter collapses under its own gravity to form an object whose gravitational attraction is so intense that nothing can escape, not even light. This fate awaits the most massive stars at the end of their lives.
Such stellar mass black holes may be a whopping five, ten, or even a hundred times the mass of the Sun. The first stellar mass black hole to be identified is known as Cygnus X-1. A black hole’s size is characterized by its event horizon. This is the sphere of no return: once inside all roads lead inexorably inwards. The radius of the event horizon of a 10 solar mass black hole is just 30 kilometres.
[Left: The red box in this image from the Digitized Sky Survey encloses the Cygnus X-1 system that contains a blue supergiant star and a black hole of around 15 solar masses. Right: Artist’s visualization of the Cygnus X-1 system. (Image Credit: Cygnus X-1: NASA’s Chandra Adds to Black Hole Birth Announcement. Chandra X-ray Observatory, NASA.)]
Astronomers believe that at the centre of every galaxy there lurks a black hole on another scale entirely. These are the supermassive black holes whose mass may be millions or even billions of times that of the Sun. We do not, as yet, fully understand how they grow to be so enormous in the time available since the Big Bang.
Brighter than a trillion stars
Over time galaxies collide and merge, and this may bring their central supermassive black holes into close proximity. Indeed, OJ 287 is the most well-studied example of such a system where two colossal black holes dance around each other performing a celestial tango de la muerte. Astronomers estimate that the primary black hole is a staggering 18 billion solar masses, while its much smaller companion is a mere 150 million solar masses. This gives the primary’s event horizon a radius of over 50 billion kilometres. To put this into context, the distance between the Sun and the outermost planet Neptune is 4.5 billion kilometres. So, the primary black hole is a vast bottomless pit that would dwarf the entire solar system.
OJ 287 is the most well-studied example of a system where two colossal black holes perform a celestial tango de la muerte.
Surrounding this chasm is the black hole’s accretion disc—an incredibly hot swirling disc of plasma with a temperature of billions of degrees—so hot that it emits X-rays and gamma rays. As the secondary dances around its gigantic partner, it periodically crashes through this seething whirlpool of fire releasing a blast of radiation that is picked up by telescopes here on Earth, and this is how we know of this amazing system.
These two-week-long flares are brighter than the combined light of an entire giant galaxy of a trillion stars. The radiation blast is produced mainly by hot plasma from the accretion disc spiralling into the secondary black hole. The OJ 287 system is 5 billion light years distant, so the light in these flares has been travelling our way since before the Earth formed. It is only because the flares are so bright that we can see them from such an incredible distance.
The clash of the cosmic titans
There are two flares every 12 years, the most recent in February 2022, as the secondary black hole plunges and re-emerges through the primary’s accretion disc. Like a cosmic duel in Lucifer’s inner sanctum, the two writhing supermassive black holes twist, twirl, and cavort around each other. Researchers led by Finnish astrophysicist Mauri Valtonen of Turku University and his colleague Achamveedu Gopakumar from the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai, India have used the precise timing of the flares to build a detailed picture of the orbit of the black holes based on our best theory of gravity—Einstein’s theory of general relativity. This enables them to predict when future flares will occur. The extreme nature of OJ 287 challenges our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature, offering tests for general relativity that have not been possible before. A wide range of astronomical instruments will be ready and waiting when the next blast is due to arrive. In the years ahead, we are sure to learn much more about this amazing system that illustrates just how weird the universe can be.
References: Mauri J Valtonen et al, ‘Refining the OJ 287 2022 impact flare arrival epoch’, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 521, Issue 4, June 2023, Pages 6143–6155, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad922
Feature image: Black Hole and a Disk of Glowing Plasma by Daniel Megias via iStock.
Scientific papers are often hard to read, even for specialists that work in the area. This matters because potential readers will often give up and do something else instead. And that means the paper will have less impact.
The fact that many scientific papers are hard to read is surprising. Scientists want others to read their papers—they don’t try to make them difficult to get through! So why does this problem arise? And how can we fix it?
The curse of knowledge
One problem is that scientists are incredibly knowledgeable about every detail of their research: from the studies that inspired them, to their methods and results, to the implications of those results. This means that they’re about as far away as it’s possible to be from someone who is new to the topic, so often they’re the worst person in the world to write up their study.
This problem is so common that it has even been given a name in psychology literature: the ‘curse of knowledge’. The curse means that people tend to unwittingly assume that others have the necessary background to understand what they are saying. Put simply, it’s easy for a scientist to miss out crucial points or steps because they’ve forgotten how important those things are for understanding their work.
Another aspect of the ‘curse of knowledge’ is that scientists tend to write like scientists. They use jargon, technical abbreviations, and phrases that they would never use in everyday speech. This ‘science speak’ usually makes things harder, not easier, for potential readers. This is particularly true with readers of interdisciplinary research, or with readers who are new to the specific subject area, who are less likely to know the meaning behind the jargon.
So how can we fix the writing problems that come from science speak and the curse of knowledge?
Writing as a research skill
The first step is that we need to acknowledge that writing is a skill that needs to be learnt, just like any other aspect of scientific research. Indeed, good writing can require a much longer learning period than many familiar research techniques. Once you have learnt how to pipette, you can do it, but writing is something that you can keep improving throughout your career.
Writing can be learnt in multiple ways. Courses can be run, usually for undergraduate or graduate students. But learning to write needs practise and motivation, and these courses are often run before the students need to write up their own research, An alternative is guide
books, that provide advice and tips, that writers can read and apply as they go along, as they produce the different sections of their paper. But what exactly needs to be learnt?
The reader
The next step is to pause and imagine potential readers. A potential reader is likely to be time-limited, stressed, and easily bored. They have a million other things to do and will take any excuse to give up on reading your paper. They might be a PhD student trying to get to grips with their subject, or a professor who doesn’t really have time to read papers anymore.
They key point is that they don’t have to read your paper—it’s the writer’s job to make them want to. This leads to a fundamental principle of scientific writing: the reader must come first. It is the job of the writer to help the reader understand the content of their paper by making things as clear and straightforward as possible.
Guiding principles
Unfortunately, putting the reader first does not always come naturally, and can require a change of thinking on the part of the writer. Luckily there are a few general principles that help with this:
Keep it Simple. Use simple clear writing to make it as easy as possible for the reader.
Assume nothing. A paper is more likely to be hard to read because it assumed too much, rather than because it was dumbed down too much.
Keep it to essentials. A more focused paper will better at both getting the major points across and keeping the attention of a time-stressed reader.
Tell your story. Good scientific writing tells a story. It tells the reader why the topic you have chosen is important, what you found out, and why that matters.
The beauty is in the details
The above advice might still seem a bit vague, but it’s just an overview. In our recent book, Scientific Writing Made Easy, we build upon these guiding principles to provide a toolkit for writing the different parts of a scientific paper. We provide both a structure for each section, and detailed tips for how to fill that structure out. We make writing easier and less scary.
Our toolkit can be applied to different types of paper across the life, human, and natural sciences. While there are important differences, a lot of the same principles can be applied whether someone is writing up a laboratory experiment, a mathematical model, or an observational field study.
Learn more about Scientific Papers Made Easy with this review from the Stated Clearly YouTube channel.
The iconic African black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis) faces an uncertain future after intense poaching caused a 98% decline in wild populations from 1960 to 1995. While numbers are currently increasing, the animal remains critically endangered.
The historical range of the black rhinoceros covered vast swaths of sub-Saharan Africa, but today’s remaining individuals inhabit just a handful of protected areas. The survival of the black rhinoceros within the fragmented remains of its natural habitat relies on dedicated conservation efforts. A study published in Molecular Biology and Evolution, “Historic Sampling of a Vanishing Beast: Population Structure and Diversity in the Black Rhinoceros”, reshapes our understanding of the evolutionary and natural history of the black rhinoceros, opening a window into the species’ genetic past while urging us to forge a path toward its conservation.
By comparing historical and modern genomes sánchez Barrerio & De Cahsan et al. uncovered the extent of human-mediated loss of population diversity in black rhinoceros. Illustration by Barrerio & De Cahsan et al.
The study characterizes the population structure and genomic diversity of the black rhinoceros, both before and after its range-wide collapse in the last century, providing a model for how genetic diversity is shaped during population contractions. “The only way to really explore this is to use species with well documented, temporal collections that are also tied to good demographic records,” says Thomas Gilbert, one of the study’s lead authors. “Sadly, species like the black rhinoceros are a perfect example, given their long-term appeal to big game hunters and poachers.” The motivation for the study, however, extended beyond mere scientific curiosity according to co-first author Binia De Cahsan Westbury: “Studying the genetic history of the black rhinoceros through time provides crucial insights into its evolutionary trajectory and aids in developing effective conservation strategies for its remaining populations.”
With this goal, the authors sequenced the genomes of 63 museum specimens collected from 1775 to 1981, as well as 20 individuals from modern black rhinoceros populations, compiling the most comprehensive genetic dataset of the species to date and significantly advancing earlier research efforts. “Whole genome sequences have revealed much more conservation-relevant population structure in the black rhinoceros than expected from traditional markers,” notes the study’s other lead author, Yoshan Moodley, emphasizing the transformative power of cutting-edge genomic techniques.
Analysis of the data revealed the presence of six major black rhinoceros populations historically as well as four subpopulations, offering more precise delineation of population borders than ever before. Notably, the results suggested that tectonic rifts in Africa during the Pleistocene had “driven the evolution of several hitherto unknown populations, many of which probably still exist within the present day Kenyan metapopulation,” highlights Moodley.
In addition to geographical barriers, the evolutionary history of the black rhinoceros was shaped by secondary contact when these barriers to gene flow were temporarily removed. “The interplay of these events has resulted in a significant pattern of isolation by distance across the sub-Saharan territory of the species,” says De Cahsan Westbury, referring to a trend in which populations that are farther apart geographically also show greater genetic differences from each other.
The researchers further evaluated levels of inbreeding among historical and modern populations of the black rhinoceros, an essential consideration for species that have suffered severe population bottlenecks. “Modern samples underscore the profound impact of population contractions and subsequent genetic drift,” notes De Cahsan Westbury, “with southern African individuals experiencing the most severe effects and the highest inbreeding among all populations.” Some populations showed evidence of inbreeding that predated the colonial period, which highlights the long-standing impact of human activity on this species according to the study’s authors.
Altogether, the study offers a resounding call to action to improve the conservation and management of the black rhinoceros. “For too long, wildlife conservation authorities have struggled to incorporate and implement urgent genetic recommendations, to the detriment of the biodiversity concerned,” notes Moodley. “It is absolutely crucial that the new populations identified in East Africa be given the highest conservation priority,” he emphasizes, echoing the study’s urgent plea for comprehensive genetic testing of black rhinoceroses in Kenya and Tanzania. In addition, the distinct evolutionary groups identified in the study, such as the Ruvuma, Maasai Mara-Serengeti, and possibly Chyulu National Park subpopulations, should be the focus of separate management to maintain their unique genetic lineages.
The study pays homage to the late Professor Mike Bruford of Cardiff University, a prominent figure in conservation genetics and a co-author of the project. His death “was a tragedy for not only his family but conservation biology in general,” note the authors. Bruford’s legacy continues to influence the field, an enduring testament to the pursuit of knowledge and the protection of Earth’s genetic heritage.
On 23 February 2022, I drove back to Michigan after giving a talk at the University of Kentucky on genome diversity in Ukraine. My niece Zlata Bilanin, a recent college graduate from Ukraine, was with me. She was calling her friends in Kyiv, worried. A single question was on everyone’s mind: will there be a war tomorrow? The thought of invasion, though, seemed unimaginable, illogical, even absurd.
At 2am, Zlata woke me up. “They are coming,” she said. I remember the color of her face–pale green. The world would never be the same again.
Indeed, the war has changed everything; priorities are no longer the same. Many researchers enlisted and went to fight. Others, their homes destroyed, fled. Many packed and crossed the border in the hope of a better life in the West.
Nearly 600 days later, the war continues, each day amplifying the human tragedy, of lives and futures lost—lives that could have otherwise been dedicated to better and more meaningful purposes.
As a researcher, my colleagues and I could not help but think about the crushing blow the war delivered to the vibrant Ukrainian scientific community. Ukraine is a country with incredible resources, unique human genetics given the land once served as a human migration crossroads, and a large dedicated, community of researchers working on numerous and varied projects. Now, however, research centers have been destroyed, and universities have few new students, as they now go to study abroad where there are opportunities, and they cannot be drafted.
Through all this, although my laboratory is at Oakland University, I continue to work with my colleagues back home, building a research program in genomics at my alma mater, Uzhhorod National University (UzhNU). Several years ago, my colleagues and I dreamed up a project to sequence a hundred Ukrainian genomes to provide data for researchers to have tools to study the history of migration, admixture, and distribution of medically relevant variation in the local population. This collaboration started with President of UzhNU, Prof Volodymyr Smolanka, a neurosurgeon by training, an effective administrator, and an active scientist.
Given his work and his position, for this blog post, I wanted a comment from him on the state of Ukrainian science since the start of the war. I called and asked, simply: “Is it harder or easier?” His reply was one that matches the current thoughts of those now involved in retaining and rebuilding Ukrainian scientific programs, “One thing I can say is that there is a lot less government funding. That’s clearly a negative. On the other hand, there seem to be more grant opportunities from international sources, and this helps us to stay afloat.”
“What about the people,” I ask, “How do they feel about science?”
“I would not say that they were optimistic. I am not sure that pessimistic would be the right word either. You know, those scientists that did not leave, they are working, they really want to work in science.”
Thinking about those who are not leaving, I contacted an old colleague who has stayed: Dr Serghey Gashchak, a legendary field biologist, who, among many things, worked in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone and knew everything there was to know about animals in Chornobyl. We used to call him “Stalker” in reference to a 1979 Soviet science fiction art film about a post-apocalyptic wasteland called “The Zone.”
Given his research background and work in a disaster zone, I emailed Serghey about his thoughts on the current situation. “It’s impossible to work in the Zone these days,” he said. “The barbarians are not at the gates anymore, but there are no research projects, and if there were, there’s no one to work on them. Many of the research staff are fighting in the war. Perhaps it is time to close.”
I was stunned to hear that, knowing Serghey’s inquisitive nature, it was hard for me to believe he would just stop doing research, Worse, I realized, this was likely felt by many. While my head said this might be true, my heart felt there must be a way forward. But, with the war’s destruction of institutions and financial mechanisms, such a mechanism couldn’t rely on expensive infrastructure and top-down government funding schemes. That would take decades to rebuild. What was needed was a way to integrate Ukrainian research into the worldwide research community: to bring opportunity and virtual infrastructure to Ukraine. In fact, the basic mechanisms for bringing research to places all around the world have been in place for decades in the form of international courses and conferences, remote learning, and worldwide collaboration — quite simply we could take the current international infrastructure and modify it to empower researchers in disaster zones.
A case in point is a summer research program developed in 2022—during the war—that takes place at Uzhhorod National University, which, although it is in Ukraine, is a safe distance from the war zone. This research program is led by an international team: Drs Fyodor Kondrashov (OIST, Japan), Roderic Guigo (CRG, Spain), Serghei Mangul (USC), and Wolfgang Huber (EMBL, Germany). Here, international faculty come to Ukrainian students and continue to train them and engage them in work around the globe.
I called Dr Kondrashov at his home in Okinawa and asked what research area he thought would be most useful to bring to a devastated Ukraine. He replied immediately: “Bioinformatics is a good choice because you could accomplish a lot more with the same amounts of resources than in other disciplines, such as molecular biology.”
He was right. The hybrid nature of bioinformatics—combining biology, computer science, mathematics, and statistics—encourages cross-disciplinary collaborations essential for solving complex biological problems—that can easily be carried out across borders. More, skills in these areas are highly transferable, can involve people who work remotely, and can serve as a catalyst for revitalizing war-affected regions.
This is just one example of how already in-place international infrastructure can be brought to Ukrainian research, and it is now one of many ongoing projects to allow Ukrainian researchers to continue their work. Many more examples are presented in the recent review, Scientists without Borders in GigaScience. In fact, we have come to realize, and have described in the review, that these mechanisms can be expanded: taking suitable and already existing international mechanisms and infrastructure to areas anywhere in the world that have been destroyed by political strife and natural disasters.
For Ukraine, and personal involvement, I teach and train Ukrainian students remotely. It is well worth it: an example of the passion of young researchers to continue their training, to embrace new opportunities is Valerii Pokrytiuk. He was admitted to my graduate program in bioinformatics at Oakland University in Michigan, but before he could come, the war broke out. Valerii volunteered to fight and is doing so somewhere in Eastern Ukraine. Periodically, when conditions allow, Valerii still joins us online for book club discussions, lab meetings, and to listen to courses I teach.
The war continues. And so does our fight.
Featured image: “Bucha, Ukraine, June 2022” by U.S. Embassy Kyiv Ukraine, Wikimedia Commons (public domain)
Academia is a complex ecosystem with researchers at various stages of their careers striving to make meaningful contributions to their fields. In support of furthering knowledge, academic journals work with researchers to disseminate findings, engage with the scholarly community, and share academic advances.
Oxford University Press (OUP) publishes more than 500 high-quality trusted journals, two-thirds of which are published in partnership with societies, organizations, or institutions. The remaining third is a list of journals owned and operated by the Press. Fundamental to this list of owned journals is our mission to create world-class academic and educational resources and make them available as widely as possible, including expanding our fully open access options for authors. As a not-for-profit university press, our financial surplus is reinvested for the purpose of educational and scholarly objectives of the University and the Press, thereby fostering the continued growth of open access initiatives and supporting the scholarly community.
How do we support researchers in different career stages through our journals?
Early Career Researchers: nurturing talent
For early career researchers (ECRs), having their work published in a reputable journal is a crucial step in establishing their academic reputation. OUP journals provide several avenues of support including:
Mentoring and guidance: Some journals provide mentorship programs or editorial support to help young researchers navigate the publishing process.
Featuring Oxford Open Immunology and Oxford Open Energy:
Two of our Oxford Open series journals, Oxford Open Immunology and Oxford Open Energy run dedicated ECR boards, which provide a key channel for direct engagement between ECR participants and our high profile academic senior editorial teams. Activities are planned throughout the year and may include assisting with facilitating journal webinars, joining ECR board meetings to discuss journal strategy and direction, suggesting and coordinating special collections or commissioned pieces on highly topical areas of research.
Open access initiatives: 120 of the journals we publish are fully open access and the vast majority of the remaining journals offer authors open access options, making research freely available for a global audience to read, share, cite, and reuse. This helps early career researchers, and researchers of all stages in their career, gain visibility of their work and reach a wider readership.
Featuring our Oxford Open series:
The Oxford Open series is underpinned by a set of guiding principles, which include an emphasis on open research, with each journal having been developed in a bespoke way to best serve the needs of its own research community.
Hear more about OUP’s approach to OA published and the Oxford Open series in The Oxford Comment podcast.
Many of our Oxford Open journals offer article types that are specifically developed for ECRs to start their publication journey, these may take the form of a Rapid Report, Short Communication, or Perspective article, for example. We regularly invite ECRs to submit their work to the journal, often in collaboration with their mentors or supervisors as appropriate.
Mid-career researchers: advancing expertise
As researchers progress in their careers, they require journals that can help them deepen their expertise and broaden their impact. OUP journals provide several avenues of support including:
Cutting-edge research: OUP journals prioritise publishing high-impact, innovative research, allowing mid-career researchers to stay updated with the latest advancements in their fields.
Featuring Exposome:
Exposome is the home of cutting-edge research from the emerging field of exposomics. The journal sits at the systematic intersections of environmental science, toxicology, chemistry, and public health and policy, and it calls on daring science from a broad community of investigators to provide a forum for engagement, redefine our understanding of the human exposome, and critically advance the field.
Editorial and reviewer roles: Many researchers at this stage are invited to serve as peer reviewers or editorial board members to further contribute their knowledge to the academic community and enhance their own expertise.
Featuring STEM CELLS Translational Medicine:
For over 10 years, STEM CELLS Translational Medicine has served as a home for timely and important research to advance the utilization of cells for clinical therapy. The journal’s peer reviewers play a critical role in ensuring that the research published in the journal serves the needs of this research community by helping move applications of these critical investigations closer to accepted best patient practices and ultimately improve outcomes.
STEM CELLS Translational Medicine is proud to work with mid-career researchers, and reviewers of all career stages and encourages researchers to join the journal’s network of expert peer reviewers where researchers can get a first-hand look at the quality of research that is required and preview cutting-edge scientific work that helps them stay atop their field.
Established researchers: global recognition
For established researchers, maintaining a high level of visibility and recognition in the academic world is paramount. OUP journals provide several avenues of support including:
Prestige and impact in the field: OUP journals are known for their prestige and rankings in their relevant fields. Publishing in our journals can bolster an established researcher’s reputation.
Featuring Nucleic Acids Research:
For almost 50 years, Nucleic Acids Research (NAR) has provided the scientific community with detailed and constructive editorial feedback resulting in publications of the very highest standard. The quality of content has been demonstrated in this year’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, which cited this article from NAR as one of three publications fundamental to the research recognized by the award.
Edited by a fully independent team of leading academic researchers, the journal serves as a beacon of trusted and high-quality research in a rapidly advancing field. Having flipped to fully OA in 2005, NAR has opened the doors to rigorous, impactful research, sharing knowledge globally and it remains at the cutting edge of molecular biology science.
Leadership opportunities: As a partner to academic research, all of OUP’s journals are edited by members of the academic community, longstanding experts in their own fields. Our journals therefore offer established researchers the opportunity to take on leadership roles within journal editorial boards as associate editors or editors-in-chief, helping to shape the direction of the journal and their fields.
Featuring Oxford Open Neuroscience:
Oxford Open Neuroscience is run by a representative group of five active scientists who are subject specialists, rather than a single editor-in-chief. Representing the needs of that community and making science-based decisions, the journal’s senior editors act as ambassadors for their individual fields.
As a researcher-led publication with a focus on diversity, transparency and innovation, Oxford Open Neuroscience is a fully open access alternative to more traditional neuroscience journals and enables researchers themselves to propel the field into a new publishing era.
OUP’s owned journals are more than just platforms for publishing research, they are invaluable partners in the academic journey of researchers at every career stage. From nurturing early career talent to supporting mid-career researchers in advancing their expertise and providing global recognition for established scholars, our journals contribute to the growth and success of the academic community. As the world of research continues to evolve, our journals will remain dedicated to supporting researchers around the world, ensuring knowledge is disseminated, shared, and celebrated.
.jpg){kind=link}