Today’s trailblazing dairy science innovations are built on the incredible work being done by a diverse, interconnected, global scientific community. Get to know a fellow community member in our ongoing spotlight series—now featuring the talented editors of JDS Communications.
John Roche, PhD, is a longtime member of the ADSA community and a passionate advocate for scientific publishing, mentorship, and evidence-based policy. He currently serves as chief science advisor to New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and as deputy chair of the Prime Minister’s Science and Technology Advisory Council, where he helps prioritize investment strategy for science and innovation. A dairy scientist with deep roots in pasture-based systems, John has contributed extensively to the Journal of Dairy Science and JDS Communications, serves as the animal nutrition and farm systems section editor of JDS Communications, and remains a vocal champion of storytelling in science, community in publishing, and the physiological wonder of the dairy cow.
You can connect with John on LinkedIn and submit your article submissions for the special JDS Communications issue he is guest editing, which is dedicated to pasture-based dairy production systems, by November 15, 2025.
What initially drew you to the ADSA community and to working on the journals team?
I found a home in the society and some great mentors and friends, and just wanted to give back. The system doesn’t work without reviewers and editors. I was given the opportunity and have loved every minute. Sometimes you have to deliver bad news to people, but, on the whole, they are mature and accepting about it. More generally, you are helping people marshal their research into the broader scientific community. Really love doing that with young scientists.
When not working on the journal, what specific questions or challenges within the field of dairy science are you currently working on?
I’m the prime minister of New Zealand’s chief science advisor and the chief science advisor of the Ministry for Primary Industries. So, my work in the dairy industry is now different. I use my own knowledge and broad contact list to ensure government policies related to the sector are evidence-based and pragmatic, and that research and innovation investment is aimed at moving the productivity and sustainability needles.
Scientific publishing plays a crucial role in the field of dairy science. What’s the number one thing you would tell prospective authors to help them in their publishing work?
I love writing—as some people will see by the length of my reviews.
Writing a scientific paper is like telling a story: the reader should not want to put it down.
I think people forget this when they focus on an itemized list of measurements and P-values. So, before you begin, decide on the title. And the title should be your key conclusion—something that will make someone want to read it. The title should focus both your Introduction and your Discussion.
Introductions should be short. In a full-length paper, if it’s longer than 1.5 pages of double-spaced content in Word, you’ve entered a Discussion frame, not an Introduction.
Materials and Methods should be detailed enough to enable someone else to undertake the work, but long lists of biochemical assays in detail, etc., should be placed in an appendix.
Results should be collated into themes. A shopping list of “this went up and this went down” is a cure for insomnia.
And the pièce de résistance, the Discussion. The Discussion should begin with a brief paragraph on what your main findings are, how they’re novel, and why they matter. From there, the major themes should be discussed, with minimal reference to results. Not all results need to be discussed.
Think of the paper you read as a grad student that you were saddened by when you reached the end, because you never wanted it to finish. That is what you want to create. I can think of a few by Dale Bauman, Alan Bell, and Jesse Goff that represent that for me.
Feedback from editors and reviewers can be hugely impactful in the publishing process and in an author’s overall career. In your own publishing work, what has your experience been with peer review?
There have been so many helpful editors over the years, but Steve Washburn stands out as one who took the time to help me frame a paper much better in my early years of publishing. He put a lot of time into helping me make sure the science and impacts were clear. Similarly, John McNamara and Matt Lucy were great mentors in helping me understand our role as editors.