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 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 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

@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

@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

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

@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

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

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

#ScientificPublishing #Research #Academia #AcademicChatter

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

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

#ScientificPublishing #Research #Academia #AcademicChatter

@jonny Often it's also battling against the preconceptions of junior academics, reinforced by countless first-hand stories of their colleagues landing into the shortlist for an academic job on the basis of a preprint, but only receiving the offer for the job after submitting the acceptance letter for the manuscript in a glamour journal – and the senior academics clamouring that the latter is the essential part, when it is exactly NOT.

If at all, here is the call: you all, try to at least redirect juniors towards society glamour journals and away from Elsevier and Springer-Nature, both of which are for profit and very much not have your interests in their hearts.

#ScientificPublishing #academia

@jonny I'd explain the choices of academics from them being busy and not willing to read hundreds of papers by as many applicants to grants/positions/promotions, rather than cowards. The comfort, the ease, the simplicity, and for some, the beauty, of relying on journal prestige for evaluation instead of doing the actual work of reading the proposals and the scientific papers, and caring about the methods and the discoveries, not the pedigree, or the number of publications, or the journals they are published in. Takes work, also skill. And impartiality, integrity, and a certain detachment. All tall orders.

The day a scientist publishes great work in a blog post – or a preprint, is almost the same – and gets a job or a grant from it is when we'll know the future has arrived, and it's a matter of kindling it so as to extend to everyone else.

#academia #ScientificPublishing

@brembs @elduvelle

Indeed all that matters are individual papers, both for evaluation of careers but also for the perception (bias, really) that one develops of a journal.

A colleague of mine had the most thorough and toughest review process ever with a submission to PLoS ONE, but that was about a decade ago if not more.

I've published there twice too, and while the first time (2012) the editor only secured one review and it was as mild as it gets, the second time (2022) we got two and they were thorough and insightful. By this (dramatically undersampled) trend alone the journal has improved. Counteracting this, the emails I keep getting from editors requesting that I review papers well outside my field and that frankly look like the kind of manuscripts that should never be published in the first place suggests the journal has changed.

I loved the idea of PLoS ONE when it came out: it's pretty much what eLife is doing nowadays with Reviewed Preprints. But these initiatives require competent editors that care deeply, and reviewers that put in the time and effort. Doing so for for-profit journals like Cell Reports or Sci Adv is, in principle, harder: free labour for a company. I mean why would one ever do that.

#ScientificPublishing

@elduvelle A chief editor of a great journal recently told me that, given the high volume of published papers, papers in Science Advances, Cell Reports and PLoS ONE effectively aren't peer reviewed. These megajournals are cash cows and shouldn't be taken seriously.
#ScientificPublishing

The real blocker: ourselves.

Will be, as members of a grant panel or search committee, or grant reviewers, and as authors:

1. stop judging a paper by its publication venue;
2. stop providing subsidised labour to for-profit journals;
3. review only for non-profit journals;
4. send our manuscripts to journals aligned with our values of openness, data sharing, democratised access, diamond open access.

It’s really on us to stop this game of chicken.

#academia#ScientificPublishing