https://biobus.swst.org/index.php/bpbj <p><em>BioProducts Business</em>, a refereed journal from the Society of Wood Science and Technology (SWST), is indexed in:</p> <p>1. <a href="https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/21101058047#tabs=1">Scopus</a></p> <p>2. <a style="background-color: #ffffff; font-size: 0.875rem;" href="https://doaj.org/toc/2378-1394">Directory of Open Access Journals</a><span style="font-size: 0.875rem;"> </span><span style="font-size: 0.875rem;">(DOAJ)</span></p> <p>3. <a href="https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/publiseringskanaler/KanalTidsskriftInfo.action?id=494765">Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers</a></p> <p>We look forward to your submissions. First published in 2016, <em>BioProducts Business</em> is an open access journal that is a continuation of the former Journal of Forest Products Business Research. Published articles can be found here: <a href="https://biobus.swst.org/index.php/bpbj/issue/archive">https://biobus.swst.org/index.php/bpbj/issue/archive</a></p> <p> </p> <div>BioBus is dedicated to advance theoretical and practical understanding of wide ranging business topics related to wood products, bio/renewable products, and non-wood products and services. The journal publishes timely, rigorous, technically sound, and scientific manuscripts. It strives to disseminate new knowledge bridging the scientific and professional communities. By achieving these aims it is the top-tier, high impact journal in the field.</div> en-US BioProducts Business 2378-1394 <p>Manuscripts published in the journal are open access and copyrighted according to the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) which requires attribution to the author, but can be readily shared and adapted. BioProducts Business allows the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions.</p> https://biobus.swst.org/index.php/bpbj/article/view/153 <p>This study compares the discourse surrounding Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) across two mediums: social media and academic literature. Through an automated content analysis of Twitter posts (n=11,314) and peer-reviewed articles (n=140), we identify significant differences in the prevalence of techno-optimism, techno-skepticism, and engagement with critical issues related to socio-environmental impacts and technological uncertainty for these bioproducts. The findings reveal that social media content is generally more optimistic and less critical of these technologies compared to the academic literature, with a notable lack of discussion on the potential social and environmental consequences. Furthermore, our analysis highlights a greater polarization of views in relation to BECCS, with both techno-optimism and techno-skepticism being more prominent across both mediums. The study emphasizes the importance of effective science communication, balanced evaluations of risks and benefits, and closer collaboration between academia and businesses to foster a more informed and nuanced discourse on disruptive technologies in the bioeconomy. Our findings also emphasize the need for scholars and businesses operating in the biomaterials and bioproducts industry to adopt a critical approach to media literacy.</p> Rawie Elnur Hamish van der Ven Copyright (c) 2024 Elnur Rawie, van der Ven Hamish 2024-12-26 2024-12-26