#Tag · bonfire.cafe

The French Academy of Sciences and the CNRS have signed a co-publishing agreement to develop a model of diamond open access scientific publishing, free for both authors and readers. This initiative, which takes the form of the Comptes rendus de l'Académie des sciences, aims to offer an ethical and equitable alternative to the growing dependence of the international research community on commercial publishers.

https://www.cnrs.fr/en/node/12218

#openaccess #diamondopenaccess #scientificpublishing

The Transmitter

@thetransmitter@mastodon.social · last month

Check out “Frameshift,” a Q&A series in which neuroscientists with nontraditional careers discuss their work and how they made the transition away from the lab. In the first entry of the series, Shari Wiseman shares how she went from the bench to science publishing.

https://www.thetransmitter.org/frameshift/frameshift-shari-wiseman-reflects-on-her-pivot-from-science-to-publishing/?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=org-social&utm_campaign=20251215-q-a-timeshift-shari-wiseman

https://www.thetransmitter.org

Frameshift: Shari Wiseman reflects on her pivot from science to publishing

Albert Cardona

@albertcardona@mathstodon.xyz replied · last month

@thetransmitter

Quite the real-life example of Lawrence's description of what happens to many scientists in the lab, dropping out to more stable careers around scientific research rather than in it, which are more stable:
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000197

Glad the transition worked for Wiseman. Here is to wishing for the energy and cunning to push the Nature publishing group towards the much needed publish, review, curate (PRC) model of #ScientificPublishing .

And a pity that the piece comes across as a pitch for sustaining traditional journals, who profit from the free labour of academics. "Reviewing papers is an important experience." – it really can be, but not when someone else is making a huge profit at your expense.

Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of Scientific Research

Public Knowledge Project

@PublicKnowledgeProject@mastodon.social · last month

📣 Our friends at the #ScholCommLab have published a preprint, "The Drain of #ScientificPublishing", and are calling for #research communities, funders, governments, and #universities to "re-communalise publishing to serve #science not the market"

PKP supports this call, and works to develop and maintain free open software for independent scholarly publishing.

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.04820

#ScholComm #AcademicChatter #FOSS #BetterPublishing #ScholarlyPublishing #IndependentPublishing #OpenAccess

Infographic titled “The Drain of Scientific Publishing,” describing four problems in scholarly publishing: Money, Time, Trust, and Control.

Money: Illustration of flying dollar bills and buildings beside a bank. Text explains that for-profit publishers charge unreasonable reading and publishing fees disconnected from production costs, noting that Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, and Taylor & Francis made $US 12 billion profit from 2019–2024.

Time: Illustration of a stressed researcher surrounded by stacks of papers and a clock. Text states researchers spend enormous time as authors, reviewers, and editors, maintaining a system that prioritizes quantity over quality, causing burnout and reduced rigor.

Trust: Text describes commercial pressures to publish quickly, enabling low-quality and fraudulent papers, eroding public confidence.

Control: Text explains that rankings like journal impact factor and h-index dictate success, with infrastructures biased toward English journals and controlled by for-profit companies.

At the bottom, a stop-sign graphic reads “Stop the Drain.” Additional text calls for altering incentives and ownership of publishing, re-communalizing scholarly publishing, building community-led systems, preventing unreasonable profits, and using existing open models and infrastructures (e.g., preprints, diamond journals, OJS, SciELO). A final statement urges aligning research assessment with open, community-led publishing. — Infographic titled “The Drain of Scientific Publishing,” describing four problems in scholarly publishing: Money, Time, Trust, and Control. Money: Illustration of flying dollar bills and buildings beside a bank. Text explains that for-profit publishers charge unreasonable reading and publishing fees disconnected from production costs, noting that Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, and Taylor & Francis made $US 12 billion profit from 2019–2024. Time: Illustration of a stressed researcher surrounded by stacks of papers and a clock. Text states researchers spend enormous time as authors, reviewers, and editors, maintaining a system that prioritizes quantity over quality, causing burnout and reduced rigor. Trust: Text describes commercial pressures to publish quickly, enabling low-quality and fraudulent papers, eroding public confidence. Control: Text explains that rankings like journal impact factor and h-index dictate success, with infrastructures biased toward English journals and controlled by for-profit companies. At the bottom, a stop-sign graphic reads “Stop the Drain.” Additional text calls for altering incentives and ownership of publishing, re-communalizing scholarly publishing, building community-led systems, preventing unreasonable profits, and using existing open models and infrastructures (e.g., preprints, diamond journals, OJS, SciELO). A final statement urges aligning research assessment with open, community-led publishing.

Centre Mersenne

@Centre_Mersenne@mastodon.online · 2 months ago

https://www.cnrs.fr/en/node/12218

#openaccess #diamondopenaccess #scientificpublishing

Ross Mounce boosted

Centre Mersenne

@Centre_Mersenne@mastodon.online · 2 months ago

The University of Lorraine offers a funding programme for diamond open access journals: Fund to support diamond open access journals 2026.

https://factuel.univ-lorraine.fr/article/fonds-de-soutien-aux-revues-diamant-2026/

The programme conditions and eligibility criteria are available on the Open Science at UL website: https://scienceouverte.univ-lorraine.fr/publication-ouverte/editer-une-revue/#financement
The list of journals supported in 2025 is also available: https://scienceouverte.univ-lorraine.fr/a-lul/fonds-de-soutien-a-la-science-ouverte/

#funding #openaccess #scientificpublishing #openscience

Redish Lab

@adredish@neuromatch.social · 2 months ago

@elduvelle @albertcardona @neuralreckoning

To me this question seems to be the issue of the #eLife journal hypothesis: they are providing reviews on preprints. They are basically post-preprint review (like #PubPeer), but unlike PubPeer, they still think (at least they talk of themselves as) a journal.

I think what #eLife and #PubPeer are doing is great. But they cannot be listed in one's CV as "refereed publications" in the way that other gatekept* journals are.

... which gets at the point @jonmsterling made about separating "preprints", "refereed publications" and "titles I'm thinking about writing" (in preparation) on one's CV.

It would be interesting to see how #eLife is still being treated as a "journal" on CVs and for grants and promotion.

BTW, in an earlier discussion, we agreed that one could list eLife papers in one's CV as long as one also included the eLife assessment on one's CV. Wanna bet these authors don't? 🤔

* Yes, I know eLife is gatekept by editors, but the door is opened based on "interesting", not based on "correct". (And, yes, there is evidence that the Glam journals do that as well, but they are at least ostensibly _claiming_ to only publish papers that are "correct".)

#ScientificPublishing

Dan Goodman

@neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social · 2 months ago

@elduvelle follow this thread because the commentary is almost as interesting as the paper (which also looks very cool btw):

https://bsky.app/profile/behrenstimb.bsky.social/post/3m6i6v3ydf22n

https://bsky.app

View

Albert Cardona

@albertcardona@mathstodon.xyz replied · 2 months ago

@neuralreckoning @elduvelle

The paper:

"The inevitability and superfluousness of cell types in spatial cognition", Luo et al. 2025
https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/99047v2

Quite the poster child for why at @eLife we support publishing papers that we consider important and yet nonetheless label as incomplete: the questions are worth asking, the discussion has to happen, the suggested experiments need to be voiced out and aired, to prompt someone to take them on to the lab.

#ScientificPublishing

Centre Mersenne

@Centre_Mersenne@mastodon.online · 2 months ago

The University of Lorraine offers a funding programme for diamond open access journals: Fund to support diamond open access journals 2026.

https://factuel.univ-lorraine.fr/article/fonds-de-soutien-aux-revues-diamant-2026/

#funding #openaccess #scientificpublishing #openscience

Fabrizio Musacchio

@pixeltracker@sigmoid.social · 2 months ago

🧠 Just came across #BeyondPDF by #TMLR. It introduces a new submission format for #ScientificPublishing based on #Markdown and #HTML, supporting interactive figures, videos, and other rich media. This enables direct interaction with content beyond what static PDFs allow. Awesome idea!

🌍 https://tmlr-beyond-pdf.org/about

#OpenScience

Sarven Capadisli

@csarven@w3c.social replied · 2 months ago

@pixeltracker Cool. My idea of going beyond #BeyondPDF for #ScientificPublishing #OpenScience with #WebStandards :

https://csarven.ca/linked-research-decentralised-web

See e.g. @dokieli https://dokie.li/

#Decentralization #Autonomy #UniversalAccess

Claudius Link boosted

Johann Dr.EO

@dreo@social.sciences.re · 2 months ago

Not only do scientific publishers vampirize the scientific community by being outragously expensive for a very minor service provided, but they do not even do correctly the one job they are claiming is justifing their insane budget…

#science #scientificPublishing

Djoerd Hiemstra 🍉 and 1 other boosted

El Duvelle

@elduvelle@neuromatch.social · 2 months ago

As an #Academic, do you reject #Elsevier and other for-profit publishers? Do you think they should stop going in the way of free exchange of knowledge?
Or maybe you think Elsevier is not that bad and wonder why people are concerned with them?

In both cases, have a look at this list of researchers pledging to stop supporting Elsevier:
http://thecostofknowledge.com/index.php

And if you are convinced... add your name to the list :)

Quoting @djoerd for the link:
https://idf.social/@djoerd/115564353571445019