I argue for the human side of infrastructure to be given the priority and attention it deserves. If you want your infrastructure to succeed, think more advocate/leader and less project manager.

Not sure this is correct. Open access is abiut right to read which sits within the broader open science umbrella. But OS is both of those and more. Frankly, gatekeeping is wrong. That's not to say anyone can share anything but we need a different and better way of determining what can be trusted

In my masters lab this happened with QPCR primers. The lab stock ran out and I checked the sequences before ordering which is when we found out it was incorrect. This stuff happens all the time and relies so heavily on the first use being validated correctly and then correct copy pasting....

If you want an evidence based argument for why you should post preprints then give my latest a read. Written before the openrxiv announcement otherwise that would have been linked in the innovation section. #gogreen

Simple announcement from @openrxiv.bsky.social but huge implications and lots of reason to be very excited.

openRxiv Labs 🧪 has launched! and @curvenote.com is the first experiment -- bringing our interactive reading experience to bioRxiv and medRxiv preprints -- we've been busy! more coming soon...

Planning to post a preprint soon? Well then our brand new resource is for you! We've created a detailed checklist for posting a preprint covering pre-posting, submission and post-posting. 4 pages designed to help you maximise your preprint. Download from Zenodo now: zenodo.org/records/2047...

tl,dr; Scientists no longer allowed to use federal funding to publish, attend meetings, or talk to the public. They cannot collaborate internationally. Grants can be cancelled for any reason, at any time, political appointees have a final say over what gets funded, and who gets funded.

"Completeness of the materials & methods used & verifiability of the underlying data are arguably more important trust signals" Great read I've got a few articles on trust signals coming soon that I hope will further this conversation, with a focus on what they may look like/who may be responsible

Been waiting for this so very excited to read the full report! Props to PLOS for being so transparent, many don't and it isn't always easy or comfortable to do so but I'd a definite sign of leadership!

"The 77% of invitations sent last year that produced no review equate to a cumulative cost of 235,000 years of elapsed wait time" - ScholarOne Future of Peer Review Report More reason to not force peer review onto preprints! The community must start pushing back on evidence lacking proposals.

If you want to read something genuinely thoughtful about Labour's future, try this. A single paragraph contains more interesting ideas than all 5,000 words of Blair's nonsense.

But I think the main point is that systemic change for better publishing does not work along the lines of open/closed access. It has to be about much more than that, which is why the focus on OA as a catalyst for (ethical) systemic change falls short as it just ends up reinforcing commercial models.

Train travel today @eastmidsrailway.bsky.social Signal fault =delay Late/cancelled train = delay Tried joining 2 trains together, broke one = delay Cows on track = delay 🐄 Emergency break = delay Standing only entire journey. V hot. Arrived in London almost 2 hrs late There's more...

100% this. I'd also say thst the more ardent and strongly such claims are made the bigger and stronger the critique should be.

Also today. New laptop sticker.

The idea that preprints become rigorous through peer review completely fails to reconcile with current evidence on preprint quality, incentives, and the limitations of traditional publishing models. It also raises some significant questions. A short 🧵

Good for him! Palantir is a plague on humanity www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026...

Also, I spend so much time thinking so deeply about all of this stuff it's almost as if somebody should actually pay me to do it 😛 (but seriously, you'd struggle to find anymore more knowledgable or a better addition)

This is absolutely the way much of the preprint space is heading (and why I've been vocal against it but also engage much less with many orgs involved). Moderation and basic checks yes but copying the current system, making preprinting harder....no thanks.

Appaling gatekeeping from Rory Stewart but very symptomatic of wider issues. If you're not publishing regularly & don't hold an academic position so so many people discount you from being an expert. A title, position or resources to publish don't make you an expert!

Very much related to my response: "What exactly is this enormous expenditure of collective intelligence through peer review buying us? What is it safeguarding? 👇

Potentially deeply unpopular opinion incoming 🚨! I’ve written a response to the proposed PRC (Publish, Review, Curate) model from Stern & O'Shea. Read it here: zenodo.org/records/2025... #OpenScience #PeerReview #Preprints #ResearchCulture #AcademicPublishing #ScholarlyCommunication

I'm crabby today but I wish we could have a little less pearl-clutching over "the children are citing AI hallucinations" and a little more over "tenured academics are citing documents that cite documents that cite documents that cite documents that don't support their claims."

The fact that academia concerns itself so much with student behaviours without first having any consequences for academics themselves is mind boggling. Do as we say not as we do.... (Haven't read the article yet but the point stands)

"Bad papers don’t get preprinted If the goal was to genuinely share science and advance our collective understanding, why keep it hidden until the journal gatekeepers give their blessing? The truth is, these papers aren’t written for the community. They’re written for CVs, for advancing careers" 🔥

How this hasn't caused bigger outrage and coverage is beyond me. Unelected oligarchs dictating dangerous and authoritarian views. Yet we allow them into our deepest public and defend systems.

And of that 1% the overwhelming majority are simply repackaging current systems and shifting goalposts, not actually solving anything. Not to mention going about them in non-scientific and values-devoid manner.

My big issue with Diamond OA has always been sustainability, particularly over the long term - in addition to the issue that this just copies many of the issues in publishing currently. In the recent journalology newsletter James makes a very good point....

Honestly I wish I could vote for AOC! Breath of fresh air in politics and someone who seems to genuinely place other above personal gain, which is so rare these days (& not just in politics)

It’s refreshing to see a Congressional Committee calling out Jay Bhattacharya for his anti-vaccine stances, using clear, direct language democrats-energycommerce.house.gov/sites/evo-su...

Preprinting is still not a maintsream activity (~11-13% of biomed lit) and preprint peer review is very much a fringe activity (~2% of preprints). So why are we putting so much money and discussion time into preprint peer review without first prioritising the thing it relies on?

After ~7 years I am no longer part of the ASAPbio community - as staff or community member (so you won't reach me there anymore incl. in the slack) I am forever grateful to Jessica for the chance to get involved and contribute to something I care so deeply about.

Simple rule: If you're still posting on X, then you're not allowed to accuse anyone else - whether a person, organisation, or group - of inaction towards intolerance.

What's needed is investment in research infrastructure, permanent positions for scientists and technicians, baseline budget for labs, etc. Not more grant money for the happy few. 6/6

No they shouldn't. The data shows that it leads to relatively limited improvements but (no data yet) there's a potential enormous cost to introducing this perverse incentive. I've been looking into researchub (who pay reviewers) and there's some very questionable behaviours.

Replication remains valuable for evidence accumulation, calibration, and characterizing variability. But replicability rate is NOT a demarcation criterion. Replicability rate-based verdicts on fields are INVALID. If there is a crisis in science, it cannot be established by these methods.

People seem to view publishers as bad due to their monopoly & therefore the answer is simply more competition....It's a very capitalist view of something that should be approached as a public good/service We need standards & a unified backbone - more akin to UK NHS not US health service nightmare

Are there any really good examples of institutional preprint policies? not funders but universities or research institutions. I'm looking for case studies for a preprint course I'm putting together :) #preprint #academicsky#openscience

I do miss London! Especially on days like this when it's summery and gorgeous!

I would absolutely love to live in California (San Fran specifically*). * with appropriate salary ofc, that place is expensive. Random thought of the day.

Ooh this is a good article!

Investment in ECRs brings huge benefits to organisations - I've seen it myself in my own work and is why I have always championed them. Empower ECRs 💪 scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2026/04/28/g...

Absolutely fantastic to see such a statement and one that is very much needed. Things appear to be moving in the right direction! I've been trying for a long time to position this kind of cohesive effort and it's something that has been building.

"The replication crisis, if there is one, cannot be established by the methods used to declare it" 🔥 The issues replication raises around material/data sharing are very valuable. Those using it to demonise or leaning into hyperbole have been highly damaging. This should get those people thinking...

This should hopefully stop people directing ASAPbio-related questions towards me. I've not been part of the organisation for a while now. That said, I have my own non-profit focussed on preprints, trust and culture so I'm happy to answer any questions relating to preprints and open science still.

"Are today’s twenty- and thirty-somethings earning more than their parents did at the same age? Yes. But their relative position in society is lower than their parents’ was, and their position relative to their peers and expectations is significantly lower"

Does anyone have access to this article who could send me over a pdf? Lacking an academic affiliation makes trying to do research harder than it should be! Understanding Indian researcher’s perspectives on preprints: insights from a nationwide survey link.springer.com/article/10.1...

Good to see early success with VeriXiv @openaccessmaven.bsky.social! I think it's particularly worth highlighing the data on reach in Africa here as that's a region with generally low preprinting levels so this data is especially encouraging :) blog.gatesopenresearch.org/2026/04/16/v...

Worth being clear that I still fully support preprinting and think they're the best way towards real positive change. However, I have serious concerns with the preprint movement and don't believe it is currently healthy. There's significant dangers (externally and internally) that need addressing