#scientificpublishing — Public Fediverse posts

Our Managing Editor Dr. Barbara Hissa will talk about “A true open-access route: how to go diamond in the nanoscience field?” the 27th International Conference on Non-Contact Atomic Force Microscopy.

📍 Innsbruck, Austria
📅 August 4, 2026
🕔 5:20 pm CEST
➡️ https://www.beilstein-journals.org/bjnano/news/WC4JNQBXURQ2QECDBFX264QE3Y?M=y

#EditorsTalk #EdiTours #ScientificPublishing #OpenScience #BJNANO 💎🔓

Our Managing Editor Dr. Barbara Hissa will talk about “A true open-access route: how to go diamond in the nanoscience field?” the 27th International Conference on Non-Contact Atomic Force Microscopy.

📍 Innsbruck, Austria
📅 August 4, 2026
🕔 5:20 pm CEST
➡️ https://www.beilstein-journals.org/bjnano/news/WC4JNQBXURQ2QECDBFX264QE3Y?M=y

#EditorsTalk #EdiTours #ScientificPublishing #OpenScience #BJNANO 💎🔓

RE: https://post.lurk.org/@loriemerson/116935764227731524

The token [1] chasers creating more work for everybody. *You don’t say*

[1] Career progression tokens. Even this word has been usurped.

#academia #ScientificPublishing

RE: https://post.lurk.org/@loriemerson/116935764227731524

The token [1] chasers creating more work for everybody. *You don’t say*

[1] Career progression tokens. Even this word has been usurped.

#academia #ScientificPublishing

My coauthors keep sending me huge Inkscape figure files, and despite me telling them about the `File -> Clean Up Document` function they still ignore it.
So, public announcement: when you work on a figure for a long time, some graphical elements that you think you deleted are still in the file, just hidden. The `Clean Up Document` function in the `File` menu removes them and can sometimes cut the figure weight by a factor 2 or more. This helps opening the figure in Inkscape but also in other viewers on older computers, and keeping the file size low.

#Inkscape #ScientificPublishing

My coauthors keep sending me huge Inkscape figure files, and despite me telling them about the `File -> Clean Up Document` function they still ignore it.
So, public announcement: when you work on a figure for a long time, some graphical elements that you think you deleted are still in the file, just hidden. The `Clean Up Document` function in the `File` menu removes them and can sometimes cut the figure weight by a factor 2 or more. This helps opening the figure in Inkscape but also in other viewers on older computers, and keeping the file size low.

#Inkscape #ScientificPublishing

Congratulations to the team behind the journal Innovations in Graph Theory, hosted on the Centre Mersenne platform, whose application to the DOAJ has just been accepted!

https://doaj.org/toc/3050-743X

Innovations in Graph Theory is a mathematical journal publishing high-quality research in graph theory including its interactions with other areas. The journal is diamond open access, meaning there are no charges for authors and no charges for readers.

#openaccess #DOAJ #scientificpublishing

Congratulations to the team behind the journal Innovations in Graph Theory, hosted on the Centre Mersenne platform, whose application to the DOAJ has just been accepted!

https://doaj.org/toc/3050-743X

Innovations in Graph Theory is a mathematical journal publishing high-quality research in graph theory including its interactions with other areas. The journal is diamond open access, meaning there are no charges for authors and no charges for readers.

#openaccess #DOAJ #scientificpublishing

Making scientific knowledge free for all https://theconversation.com/making-scientific-knowledge-free-for-all-286857

The three main approaches are Green OA, Gold OA and Diamond OA:

- Green OA : publishing in a traditional journal and then depositing an accepted but unformatted version of the manuscript in an Open Access archive or an institutional repository

- Gold OA: final article immediately accessible to everyone, but involves publication fees amounting (i.e. Article Processing Charge, APC) to several thousand euros, paid by the authors or their institutions

- Diamond OA: allows authors to publish content for free and gives readers free access, thanks to journals that are backed by scientific communities, university libraries or non-profit organisations.

#science #scientificPublishing

Making scientific knowledge free for all https://theconversation.com/making-scientific-knowledge-free-for-all-286857

The three main approaches are Green OA, Gold OA and Diamond OA:

- Green OA : publishing in a traditional journal and then depositing an accepted but unformatted version of the manuscript in an Open Access archive or an institutional repository

- Gold OA: final article immediately accessible to everyone, but involves publication fees amounting (i.e. Article Processing Charge, APC) to several thousand euros, paid by the authors or their institutions

- Diamond OA: allows authors to publish content for free and gives readers free access, thanks to journals that are backed by scientific communities, university libraries or non-profit organisations.

#science #scientificPublishing

📢 Call for Papers: Journal of Solid Waste Valorization and Chemical Management

💡 The journal is rooted in the greendevelopment philosophy of "solid waste resource recovery and chemical risk control". Aiming to establish a professional academic platform.

📖 Join us — submit your work!

Journal Website: https://www.icjn.net/jswvcm

#SolidWaste #GreenChemistry #ZeroWaste #WasteToEnergy #CallForPapers #AcademicPublishing #ScientificPublishing #OpenAcess #OA

📢 Call for Papers: Journal of Solid Waste Valorization and Chemical Management

💡 The journal is rooted in the greendevelopment philosophy of "solid waste resource recovery and chemical risk control". Aiming to establish a professional academic platform.

📖 Join us — submit your work!

Journal Website: https://www.icjn.net/jswvcm

#SolidWaste #GreenChemistry #ZeroWaste #WasteToEnergy #CallForPapers #AcademicPublishing #ScientificPublishing #OpenAcess #OA

Due to my role as editor in a journal, I have just received a rather disturbing email from what I guess I would describe it as a scientific publication agency. Here is an excerpt:

"For manuscripts that successfully complete the journal's peer-review and editorial procedures, we are willing to pay an additional fee of up to 500 USD for accelerated review service. This fee would be separate from and additional to the journal's regular APC or publication charges."

Likely it is spam/scam, but it is hard to discount entirely, and it would reflect on a broken and further crumbling publishing system.

#scientificpublishing #scientificintegrity

Interesting wrinkle to my never quite finished stance on where to review and publish today.

I got a review request from the Journal of Human Geography. I look them up, they are published by SAGE, so I send my usual "I do not review for Big Publishing" response https://marioangst.com/en/blog/posts/dear-editors/

Then they actually get back with a note that they are a radical outfit (their page says they engage in "institutional socialism"), which does not make a profit and re-distributes all the money they get back from SAGE. I mean, that is quite cool and shows that it's not always so clear-cut.

I reconsidered, but in the end still decided not to review for them.

In effect, they are cool outfit who purchases publishing services from one of the big publishers. I do not have a problem in principle with companies providing scientific publishing services, as long as they don't extract excessive value from our work. SAGE might not do that for Human Geography, but definitely does as a whole.

So, after these considerations, I still do not think this aligns with my principles on where I contribute my reviewing labour. Especially as there are many other initiatives who actually have taken back the means of communications themselves. With Open Journal Systems software and recent initiatives like Open Research Europe, I just think we are at a different point in time now, where there are just not that many excuses to go with Big Publishing left.

#scientificpublishing #academia #publishing #OpenScience

Interesting wrinkle to my never quite finished stance on where to review and publish today.

I got a review request from the Journal of Human Geography. I look them up, they are published by SAGE, so I send my usual "I do not review for Big Publishing" response https://marioangst.com/en/blog/posts/dear-editors/

Then they actually get back with a note that they are a radical outfit (their page says they engage in "institutional socialism"), which does not make a profit and re-distributes all the money they get back from SAGE. I mean, that is quite cool and shows that it's not always so clear-cut.

I reconsidered, but in the end still decided not to review for them.

In effect, they are cool outfit who purchases publishing services from one of the big publishers. I do not have a problem in principle with companies providing scientific publishing services, as long as they don't extract excessive value from our work. SAGE might not do that for Human Geography, but definitely does as a whole.

So, after these considerations, I still do not think this aligns with my principles on where I contribute my reviewing labour. Especially as there are many other initiatives who actually have taken back the means of communications themselves. With Open Journal Systems software and recent initiatives like Open Research Europe, I just think we are at a different point in time now, where there are just not that many excuses to go with Big Publishing left.

#scientificpublishing #academia #publishing #OpenScience

Before submitting a paper, checking a journal’s publishing behavior may now be as important as reading its aims.

New tools use open databases to highlight suspicious shifts in output and authorship.

🔗 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01707-1

#OpenScience #ResearchIntegrity #ScientificPublishing #DataScience #AcademicPublishing

Before submitting a paper, checking a journal’s publishing behavior may now be as important as reading its aims.

New tools use open databases to highlight suspicious shifts in output and authorship.

🔗 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01707-1

#OpenScience #ResearchIntegrity #ScientificPublishing #DataScience #AcademicPublishing

When I recently did a literature review of English-language scientific articles, I thought things were bad.

But now I review articles in German and things are much, much worse: No DOIs, no online access, articles available only in print at a small university a day trip away … articles published in a journal discontinued in 1984, and articles only available on an obscure CD-ROM that needs Windows 98 to display its content. 😶

#ScientificPublishing

When I recently did a literature review of English-language scientific articles, I thought things were bad.

But now I review articles in German and things are much, much worse: No DOIs, no online access, articles available only in print at a small university a day trip away … articles published in a journal discontinued in 1984, and articles only available on an obscure CD-ROM that needs Windows 98 to display its content. 😶

#ScientificPublishing

"Why have papers by one of history's most famous physicists been retracted?" <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.zwsaifa>

> In early May, Yves Gingras, a historian of physics at the University of Quebec (UQ) at Montreal, was browsing Retraction Watch, a website that catalogs fraud, data manipulation, and other scientific sins. He noticed a link that read, “Retractions by Nobel Prize winners.” Were there really Nobel laureates whose papers had been withdrawn from the scientific literature? [...]
>
> The fourth name on the list, with two retracted papers, was Max Planck—a legendary pioneer of quantum mechanics and the 1918 Nobel laureate in physics. Gingras had never heard a whiff of scandal about Planck, who was almost as widely revered for his character as his physics. [...]
>
> Gingras was especially incensed that Springer Nature deviated from the normal practice of merely slapping the word RETRACTED across the digital version of the paper while still allowing scholars to read the text. Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.” Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95. [...]
>
> Representatives from Springer Nature declined to comment, beyond saying that “detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors.” The company also nixed an editorial that Scarlata planned to write about the retractions.
>
> The retraction of the second Planck paper, published in 1940, left Gingras and Khelfaoui even more baffled. It also cited copyright violation—yet the piece had never appeared elsewhere. Then Khelfaoui noticed something that added to suspicions that an algorithm was at work.

Here's one of the retracted papers on Springer: <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01475382>. Luckily still on Archive: <https://archive.org/details/sim_naturwissenschaften_1942-02-27_30_9-10>

#science #scientificpublishing #academia #springer

"Why have papers by one of history's most famous physicists been retracted?" <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.zwsaifa>

> In early May, Yves Gingras, a historian of physics at the University of Quebec (UQ) at Montreal, was browsing Retraction Watch, a website that catalogs fraud, data manipulation, and other scientific sins. He noticed a link that read, “Retractions by Nobel Prize winners.” Were there really Nobel laureates whose papers had been withdrawn from the scientific literature? [...]
>
> The fourth name on the list, with two retracted papers, was Max Planck—a legendary pioneer of quantum mechanics and the 1918 Nobel laureate in physics. Gingras had never heard a whiff of scandal about Planck, who was almost as widely revered for his character as his physics. [...]
>
> Gingras was especially incensed that Springer Nature deviated from the normal practice of merely slapping the word RETRACTED across the digital version of the paper while still allowing scholars to read the text. Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.” Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95. [...]
>
> Representatives from Springer Nature declined to comment, beyond saying that “detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors.” The company also nixed an editorial that Scarlata planned to write about the retractions.
>
> The retraction of the second Planck paper, published in 1940, left Gingras and Khelfaoui even more baffled. It also cited copyright violation—yet the piece had never appeared elsewhere. Then Khelfaoui noticed something that added to suspicions that an algorithm was at work.

Here's one of the retracted papers on Springer: <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01475382>. Luckily still on Archive: <https://archive.org/details/sim_naturwissenschaften_1942-02-27_30_9-10>

#science #scientificpublishing #academia #springer

Die @dfg_public hat ein Video zum wissenschaftsgeleiteten Publizieren veröffentlicht.

#ScientificPublishing

https://youtu.be/vjckj9Hp1RY

Die @dfg_public hat ein Video zum wissenschaftsgeleiteten Publizieren veröffentlicht.

#ScientificPublishing

https://youtu.be/vjckj9Hp1RY

Sometimes I still can't wrap my head around how messy #ScientificPublishing is.

I have user accounts at 3 different universities, and for a simple literature review I need all three of them but still don't have access to all articles I need to read.

Also, during my search I came across articles published in peer-review journals of the most renowned scientific publishers … and they're full of errors.

PS: If I have to click one more #CloudFlare captcha, I will run amok. (Not really, but still…)

Sometimes I still can't wrap my head around how messy #ScientificPublishing is.

I have user accounts at 3 different universities, and for a simple literature review I need all three of them but still don't have access to all articles I need to read.

Also, during my search I came across articles published in peer-review journals of the most renowned scientific publishers … and they're full of errors.

PS: If I have to click one more #CloudFlare captcha, I will run amok. (Not really, but still…)

Together with our Editor-in-Chief, Gerhard Wilde, our Managing Editor Dr. Barbara Hissa will give an invited talk as part of the spring/summer series 2026 of the Israel Vacuum Society (IVS).

The talk will take place online on June 25, 2026 at 1:00 pm CEST.

Participation is free ➡️
https://www.ivs.org.il/_files/ugd/ab9e6a_308d24dec1464c70947096a506a4ff50.pdf

#EditorsTalk #EdiTours #ScientificPublishing #DiamondOpenAccess #OpenScience #BJNANO 💎🔓

Together with our Editor-in-Chief, Gerhard Wilde, our Managing Editor Dr. Barbara Hissa will give an invited talk as part of the spring/summer series 2026 of the Israel Vacuum Society (IVS).

The talk will take place online on June 25, 2026 at 1:00 pm CEST.

Participation is free ➡️
https://www.ivs.org.il/_files/ugd/ab9e6a_308d24dec1464c70947096a506a4ff50.pdf

#EditorsTalk #EdiTours #ScientificPublishing #DiamondOpenAccess #OpenScience #BJNANO 💎🔓

@rupdecat @KorinnaAllhoff

Indeed: APCs of like £100 / paper, if that; likely far less [1]. And ideally, of that amount per submission, which correlates far more with actual work to do [2].

[1] Such as in fields like machine learning https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/

[2] https://albert.rierol.net/tell/20161008_Breaking_even_in_scientific_publishing.html

#ScientificPublishing

@rupdecat @KorinnaAllhoff

Indeed: APCs of like £100 / paper, if that; likely far less [1]. And ideally, of that amount per submission, which correlates far more with actual work to do [2].

[1] Such as in fields like machine learning https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/

[2] https://albert.rierol.net/tell/20161008_Breaking_even_in_scientific_publishing.html

#ScientificPublishing

From Alex Eve (executive director of the society journal Development) and James Briscoe (editor-in-chief of Development):

"We contend that Development is a key example that demonstrates the lack of correlation between the impact factor metric, and the trust, reputation and scientific rigour of the articles we publish."

"The elephant in the room: impact factor"
Alex Eve and James Briscoe, 2026 editorial
https://journals.biologists.com/dev/article/153/12/dev205838/371997/The-elephant-in-the-room-impact-factor

#Development #ScientificPublishing #DevBio #ImpactFactor

From Alex Eve (executive director of the society journal Development) and James Briscoe (editor-in-chief of Development):

"We contend that Development is a key example that demonstrates the lack of correlation between the impact factor metric, and the trust, reputation and scientific rigour of the articles we publish."

"The elephant in the room: impact factor"
Alex Eve and James Briscoe, 2026 editorial
https://journals.biologists.com/dev/article/153/12/dev205838/371997/The-elephant-in-the-room-impact-factor

#Development #ScientificPublishing #DevBio #ImpactFactor

@KorinnaAllhoff

At least PLoS is a non-profit, and publishes its finances. Editors are often not professional, and yes, APCs make no sense when authors, reviewers and editors are all practicing scientists. Hosting a bunch of PDFs and the editorial management software does not cost nowhere near as much per paper.

I only review and edit for non-profit journals. If we all did the same the for-profit journals would soon collapse, because they rely completely on our unpaid labour of us academics. (If they attempt to circumvent our boicot with LLMs, well, whatever happens to them will be well-deserved and self-inflicted.)

#ScientificPublishing

@KorinnaAllhoff

At least PLoS is a non-profit, and publishes its finances. Editors are often not professional, and yes, APCs make no sense when authors, reviewers and editors are all practicing scientists. Hosting a bunch of PDFs and the editorial management software does not cost nowhere near as much per paper.

I only review and edit for non-profit journals. If we all did the same the for-profit journals would soon collapse, because they rely completely on our unpaid labour of us academics. (If they attempt to circumvent our boicot with LLMs, well, whatever happens to them will be well-deserved and self-inflicted.)

#ScientificPublishing

Preprints are bad because we need peer review to ensure quality and integrity of the scientific record. 🤥😜

🤑🤑🤑 #Elsevier

#ScientificPublishing #SciPub 🧪

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4x4id4pf2mryakvmphrpi2eb/post/3moph2kceuc2x

The problem is not APCs, the problem is rent-extraction of #ScientificPublishing by for-profits. It's senseless.

But pay those same APCs to someone like CoB? They'll find their way towards sponsoring conferences, travel awards, studentships, etc...

Nothing wrong with that!

2/2

The TLDR: Impact Inflation tells you when a journal is "punching above their weight", or have an "inflated value" in terms of IF. Golf rules, lower is better. IF is a flawed metric. Impact Inflation normalizes the IF so you can tell what it means. #SciPub #ScientificPublishing

The strain on scientific publi...

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:x6bajgevb6y6m5w6zplsbr35/post/3moll7ze3w22q

@thetransmitter

Scientific publishing has barely adapted to the internet ... but sure likes to profit from LLM-generated papers that bring those sweet APCs.

#ScientificPublishing

@thetransmitter

Scientific publishing has barely adapted to the internet ... but sure likes to profit from LLM-generated papers that bring those sweet APCs.

#ScientificPublishing

@feisty_lemming @jonny

The publisher makes money. That’s the value. Why bother with actual scientists (reviewers, editors, readers) if not needed, since all authors need is tokens of progress for career progression. The papers won’t be read anyway by any committees that will evaluate their CVs.

Some fraction of academia has fallen into a garbage gyrus.

#ScientificPublishing

@feisty_lemming @jonny

The publisher makes money. That’s the value. Why bother with actual scientists (reviewers, editors, readers) if not needed, since all authors need is tokens of progress for career progression. The papers won’t be read anyway by any committees that will evaluate their CVs.

Some fraction of academia has fallen into a garbage gyrus.

#ScientificPublishing

#AcademicSky #AcademicChatter #ScientificPublishing #FoSci

@SciMag @news-from-science-SciMag

By their own data, the method doesn't work? Also, mesuring novelty is a bad idea to begin with, because novelty is largely unrelated to impact. But the method sure gives publishers something to point to for their decisions, offloading or even dispensing with the need for judgement. Of course Elsevier is interested ...

#ScientificPublishing

@SciMag @news-from-science-SciMag

By their own data, the method doesn't work? Also, mesuring novelty is a bad idea to begin with, because novelty is largely unrelated to impact. But the method sure gives publishers something to point to for their decisions, offloading or even dispensing with the need for judgement. Of course Elsevier is interested ...

#ScientificPublishing

The past two months, I helped coordinate the "Phase Transitions..." research semester programme at CWI (https://www.cwi.nl/en/events/research-semester-programmes/phasecap-phase-transitions-in-combinatorics-algorithms-probability/). It ended last Friday, and still I feel "hungover" from the intensive blur of activities/developments/ideas. Very grateful to my team --Feri, Jop, Serte, Carla, Noela, Guus-- we did it!

In parallel, during the same two months, after the dawn of recognition of what has arrived (after a tip from Jeroen), I underwent a kind of phase transition myself. Avowed refusenik in March (see https://mathstodon.xyz/@kangmeister/115252549665766971); an "anti-Gemini" research working group in April; compulsive button-pressing in May. (And yes, I *know* it is easy to set it up for pressing fewer buttons...)

That poetic part of me (or whatever remains of it) is allured by the term, "cognitive surrender", if only to help in my search for the right words to describe the sharp changes underway in various facets of mathematical life/growth.

#CWI #combinatorics #algorithms #probability #conferences #generativeAI #formalization #lean #scientificpublishing

The past two months, I helped coordinate the "Phase Transitions..." research semester programme at CWI (https://www.cwi.nl/en/events/research-semester-programmes/phasecap-phase-transitions-in-combinatorics-algorithms-probability/). It ended last Friday, and still I feel "hungover" from the intensive blur of activities/developments/ideas. Very grateful to my team --Feri, Jop, Serte, Carla, Noela, Guus-- we did it!

In parallel, during the same two months, after the dawn of recognition of what has arrived (after a tip from Jeroen), I underwent a kind of phase transition myself. Avowed refusenik in March (see https://mathstodon.xyz/@kangmeister/115252549665766971); an "anti-Gemini" research working group in April; compulsive button-pressing in May. (And yes, I *know* it is easy to set it up for pressing fewer buttons...)

That poetic part of me (or whatever remains of it) is allured by the term, "cognitive surrender", if only to help in my search for the right words to describe the sharp changes underway in various facets of mathematical life/growth.

#CWI #combinatorics #algorithms #probability #conferences #generativeAI #formalization #lean #scientificpublishing

Dear scientific publishers:
Please 🛑 STOP 🛑 inserting spaces after each period and slash in a #DOI in a reference list.

DOIs are (some sort of) web links, not regular sentences. Therefore, it's doi.org/abc.de, not:
doi. org/ abc. de

#ScientificPublishing

Dear scientific publishers:
Please 🛑 STOP 🛑 inserting spaces after each period and slash in a #DOI in a reference list.

DOIs are (some sort of) web links, not regular sentences. Therefore, it's doi.org/abc.de, not:
doi. org/ abc. de

#ScientificPublishing

What Counts as Diamond Open Access? China Has Its Own Answer

#ScientificPublishing #DiamondOpenAccess #China

https://doi.org/10.1146/katina-052826-1

What Counts as Diamond Open Access? China Has Its Own Answer

#ScientificPublishing #DiamondOpenAccess #China

https://doi.org/10.1146/katina-052826-1

🎉 Big news! The Southeastern European Medical Journal has successfully passed the first-ever Hrčak certification process, earning both quality certificates! 🏆✨

Only 25% of journals achieved this. A huge thank you to our authors, reviewers, and editors! 🔓🌍

#SEEMEDJ #OpenAccess #ScientificPublishing #Hrčak

What does the #AcademicChatter hivemind think about strategically reordering manuscript author order to promote junior author who may benefit more from a first-authorship? Given (1) a discipline where author order is important, (2) all on authors fulfilled authorship criteria, (3) junior author would be listed lower if going by contributions, and (4) all authors agree to reordering. #ScientificPublishing

What does the #AcademicChatter hivemind think about strategically reordering manuscript author order to promote junior author who may benefit more from a first-authorship? Given (1) a discipline where author order is important, (2) all on authors fulfilled authorship criteria, (3) junior author would be listed lower if going by contributions, and (4) all authors agree to reordering. #ScientificPublishing

"Intermediate levels of scientific knowledge are associated with overconfidence and negative attitudes towards science", Lackner et al. 2023 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01677-8

The Institute for Replication (#I4R) is collaborating with the publisher (Nature Human Behaviour) and has now produced a report on the above paper (https://osf.io/mg95t/files/mjs86 ) which is largely positive:

"LFMMG (2023) presents a computationally reproducible and largely robust finding. We re-implemented the full analytical pipeline and conducted thirty-one robustness checks with those results summarized in Table 8. There is much kudos to be given to the original authours* for making the process of replicating their work clear and worthwhile."

* typo in the original text of the report.

#ScientificPublishing #PRC #PublishReviewCurate

@MCDuncanLab @Drugmonkey

Relatedly, in the middle of the XX century the scientists that were responsible signed the paper as authors, and everyone else was listed in the Acknowledgements section.

That today we list everybody as "middle authors" is, on the one hand, a consequence of the "publish or perish" culture, and on the other, a way to bring visibility to people who did the actual work (I am thinking here of famous neuroscience papers were the actual work was done by non-PhD women technicians who were merely "acknowledged" instead of signing as first authors, which would have been the case today).

Further, in my own papers, I don't add anyone as author who hasn't read the whole paper and commented on it. As a bare minimum. Each contributor should know first hand what they are agreeing to endorse with their name, even if they couldn't do that work themselves without a lot of training.

#ScientificPublishing #academia

I'm reading news of someone in academia complaining about the new no-AI policy by ArXiv that requires something as outlandish as co-authors to take responsibility for what gets published in a scientific paper and … I'm sorry, how is this unexpected?

Academic publishing has a lot of issues, but requiring people to actually read what they sign off to is not one of them.

#scientificPublishing #academia #publishOrPerish

Scientific publishing has always been hard, and as always, it's about attention. Here is Dr. Alois Alzheimer trying to communicate his findings about dementia to his contemporaries 120 years ago:

"On 3 November 1906, Alzheimer discussed his findings on the brain pathology and symptoms of presenile dementia publicly, at the Tübingen meeting of the Southwest German Psychiatrists. The attendees at this lecture seemed uninterested in what he had to say. The lecturer that followed Alzheimer was to speak on the topic of "compulsive masturbation", which the audience of 88 individuals was so eagerly awaiting that they sent Alzheimer away without any questions or comments on his discovery of the pathology of a peculiar case of early-onset dementia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Alzheimer

Thankfully, "Following his presentation, Alzheimer published a short paper summarizing his presentation; in 1907 he wrote a longer paper detailing the disease and his findings."

"... he used the newly developed Bielschowsky stain to identify amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. These brain anomalies became identifiers of what is now known as Alzheimer's disease."

#neuroscience #Alzheimer #ScientificPublishing