Sometimes when a paper has many authors and drags on for years the resulting manuscript end up with a bit of a stitched together feel. And in this world of post-peer-review-by-socia-media it’s easy to hear about the flaws after the fact. Our recently published “A microbial survey of the International Space Station (ISS)” had some such flaws. Nothing that affected the data or interpretations thereof, but mainly a need to get up the current standards on terminology relating to 16S rRNA genes and OTUs (as opposed to “species”). Many thanks to the folks on Twitter who gave us feedback. I would encourage others in similar situations to consider publishing corrections… it’s easy to do in the digital age.