| 15 Apr 2026
Editorial: Introducing a new article type: Limitations, Errors, Surprises, Shortcomings and Opportunities for New Science (LESSONS)
Abstract. Science is a rich process of well-informed trial-and-error and learning from errors often paves the way to scientific advances. However, this process and associated so-called null results are seldomly shared, because the publication culture and career incentives are biased towards positive results. This bias impedes scientific progress because errors or null results can be repeated by other scientists unless they are made public. In contrast, the publication of non-positive results and associated learnings completes an unbiased record of the research effort, contributes to open and transparent science, allows the authors and others to learn and may open opportunities for new science. A dedicated article type for these kinds of lessons as part of established journals clearly encourages such articles, and increases their visibility and recognition.
Here, we introduce and explain a new article type that covers lessons learned to help overcome the positive publishing bias and that is being introduced in participating European Geoscience Union (EGU) publications. "LESSONS" articles describe the Limitations, Errors, Surprises, Shortcomings and Opportunities for New Science emerging from the scientific process. Note that the terms included in the LESSONS abbreviation are just examples to clarify what these article types stand for without indicating definitions or exclusive categories. Importantly, a LESSONS article will offer a substantial, valuable insight within the scope of geosciences.
Specifically, we present two types of articles: LESSONS Reports are journal articles that apply the public peer review model of EGU's journals, whilst LESSONS Posts are not peer-reviewed preprints that allow early-stage reporting. Both article types are short, so the extent and depth to which the subject can be explored is deliberately limited (e.g., as for the GC Insights or Letter format) to help lower the barrier to journal publication. Details of how to structure and submit both of these article types are given, as well as guidance for reviewers. LESSONS articles will be published in EGU's community journals but are also summarized in a dedicated and ongoing interjournal compilation. In this way, these insights are easily findable for other scientists looking to prevent duplicate research, improve their meta-analyses, or otherwise gain value from the LESSONS articles of others.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Geoscience Communication.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
The manuscript presents a new article type (LESSONS), dedicated to scientific errors, limitations and null results - topics frequently absent in classic scientific literature. It refers to several peer-reviewed articles addressing these topics, which showcase the impact of a positively biased publication culture, as well as the scientific value of reporting errors, limitations and null results. The article properly states the need and advantages of this type of article. I warmly congratulate the authors on this initiative.
Before publication, I would recommend considering the following suggestions:
L.117-124: In this part of the text, the authors give examples of discontinued journals dedicated to the same topic. In my view, it would be helpful to reflect on the potential causes and to state what will be done to avoid a similar ending for the LESSONS article type.
L.222-223: the authors highlight that limitations, errors, etc. (i.e. LESSONS) have been published before in "regular research articles", together with "substantial new results, advances". In my view, the advantage of publishing this type of results in a LESSONS article type in comparison to a "regular" article type is not clearly stated. Are LESSONS articles a temporary need while the publishing culture does not change? If not, this should be clearly stated.
Chapter 3: I think it would be worth adding to this section the answer to "When to write a LESSONS article". In my perspective, a researcher will continue investigating a problem until the "substantial new result" is found. At that time, they might prioritize writing a "regular research article" in comparison to a LESSONS article. There are sufficient arguments in the manuscript supporting the writing of a LESSONS article. However, current career incentives might pressure researchers to move on to the next finding instead of documenting the LESSONS from their just published work. I think it would be useful if the authors could acknowledge and elaborate on these challenges and motivate the need to timely document the discovered errors and shortcomings.
L.240, 258, 358, 360, 362: capitalize "report(s)" for consistency.
L.240-241: introduce ACP after "article processing charges" just for clarity.
L. 250, 359, 361: capitalize "post(s)" for consistency.