This is the May cover of NN but it has already been debunked on biorxiv www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6... Such a clear statement about the ridiculous pace of publishing (not just NN).

“Authors [&] reviewers tell us that they have had a more constructive experience…choosing eLife not because of our impact factor, but because of our process” 👆 eLife comtinues to provoke debate but this is perhaps the most important point elifesciences.org/articles/110...

Very pleased with this review of our concert on Sunday! www.theguardian.com/music/2026/m...

The last year has been an extraordinary journey for us at @elife.bsky.social as we have been establishing a new model of publishing and taken on some of the commercial forces in publishing. We have tried to capture some of the takeaways in this editorial.

1/ Three years ago, we completely changed the way we review and publish research articles. Today, we’re taking a look at how it’s going and what’s next. buff.ly/aHwYNIE

Super excited that Wellcome is renewing its commitment to @elife.bsky.social and supporting us as we try to help others move to more progressive publishing approaches.

👀ICYMI: "Binary decisions are inevitable, in the choice to read, cite, or disregard something, but they are not fit as proxies for scientific validity" @georgealfredcurrie.bsky.social & @damianpattinson.bsky.social #OpenResearch #PeerReview #AcademicChatter

New piece by @georgealfredcurrie.bsky.social and me about the problems with equating journal acceptance with scientific validity. This is what we're trying to challenge at eLife, but many disagree. Is it because of opposition to the arguments, or entrenched culture? blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsoci...

This is a great example of how the eLife model better reflects how science works in practice, with uncertainty and debate as a core part of how our understanding progresses.