I'm also very much open to speaking about preprints in any capacity - I released a report in Jan which contains the most up to date data and overview of preprinting in the Life Sciences - zenodo.org/records/1934....
Leaving doesn't mean I lose my expertise :)
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...
This op-ed was an attempt to prompt some self reflection and begin asking some difficult questions.
The big question though is will those in the preprint space reflect, ignore or simply dismiss the arguments I make here?
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
It's out! Perhaps one of the op-eds that has made me most nervous releasing.
Taking Richard Poynders arguments as to why OA failed, I apply these to the preprint movement.
scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2026/04/14/g...
From EARTHSEED: THE BOOKS OF THE LIVING Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears. To be led by a fool is to be led by the opportunists who control the fool. To be led by a thief is to offer up your most precious treasures to be stolen. To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies. To be led by a tyrant is to sell yourself and those you love into slavery.
Octavia E. Butler, 1998:
This is key. It's not like concerns weren't raised. Concerns were ignored.
That's happening again in a few other OS spaces where concerns are being ignored and behaviour is not actually that aligned with openness.
Also a topic of an Op-ed that is hopefully coming soon!
There's an article coming out next week (by me) that looks at whether we've learnt the lessons from the OA failures.
Won't give away my conclusions but it's kinda depressing
New business idea. One of those things above a baby's crib that rotate but for adults. For when you have to spend prolonged time looking up - surgery, tattoos etc.
I'd love to see many more senior researchers presenting posters! Great chance to chat with people who can often be in cliques at conferences (& so intimidating to new folks).
Plus frees up talk space for cool new stuff not recycled conference season talks
idk how or why but it's the first time i came across this paper by Xiao-Li Meng where he offers this banger (if you'd rather hear it from someone that isn't me):
"replication paradox: the more we replicate, the surer we fool ourselves"
🫡
You've heard the acronym - PRC. But what is the Publish Review Curate model and what are the potential benefits, downsides and reality?
As far as I'm aware, this is the only "full-picture" overview of the PRC model currently.
Find out in our latest video: youtu.be/VPNpkeV_EFQ
I had been (very slowly) developing a mini-documentary looking at the history of preprints, focussing on their adoption in the Life Sciences.
Unfortunately, I've had to abandon that project but it would have been a really cool exploration of the space!
These posts are always a brilliant and insightful read! Huge thanks to @steveroyle.bsky.social for spending time doing such analyses and sharing them :)
I've used previous code that Steve has shared to do further analysis and even within entire studies :)
When did @riversidefm.bsky.social reduce the free plan to 2 hours total (not per month) and increase their costs so much???
I'm now in the market for an alternative, anyone used Boomcaster?
And I say that as a big supporter of ORCiD.
The point I'm making is that meaningful change is incredibly difficult & takes a huge amount of work but is also the only change we should be aiming for.
What good are mandates when mandates only move numbers, not quality?
The more important question though; why are these orgs not asking hese questions themselves and measuring the right things?
There's an on-going joke that nobody updates their ORCiD.
Here is data showing that mandates & current adoption efforts are simply not working.
I'd argue this almost certainly extends out to other efforts that are mandated too. Real change requires a cultural shift and that's hard to achieve.
Finance preprint servers and proper preprint advocacy (from actual experts with experience). Someone has to pick up costs somewhere and a joint long term committed funding of preprint servers would make them more sustainable
I would have liked to have seen them redirect at least some of that money towards supporting preprint servers/green OA though. As it is it feels like a "not our problem" kinda approach.
I feel that a lot of reform orgs don't ask the right questions, in part because doing so could reveal limited actual impact and change which would be detrimental to their survival and funding.
But it's essential that we do ask the difficult question if we're to really, meaingfully, change things
Mandates don't work. That's the key message from this brilliant analysis of ORCiD adoption.
Mandates lead to more profiles but these are inactive and empty. ORCiD consoria membership also does not significantly increase profile completeness.
Having now properly read this I agree with you (don't drink and post folks)!
Agree that they should have made a serious policy (ideally Green OA) and that not doing so is a mistake. It actually looks very poorly thought through
CRUK stop supporting open access fees
Good step but there's definitely a more nuanced dialogue to be had. (I'd love to chat more about this with them too)
news.cancerresearchuk.org/2026/04/01/w...
Yes this is why it'd be interesting to see what data @elife.bsky.social have on this given their focus on peer review
This is my feeling for how they're used - not often unless someone needs that deeper info.
