Read this fantastic @scholarlykitchen.bsky.social post by @jacoates.bsky.social! I think superimposing Richard Poynder's thoughts about the OA movement with the preprint movement is superb 👌.
#Preprint #PRC #OpenAccess #PeerReview #Publishing
scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2026/04/14/g...
Thomas and Denis are great people, deeply passionate about the diamond OA community and the work they do! #Librarians - do attend the call & I'm sure you'll have a great time! :) @peercommunityin.bsky.social #OpenScience #DiamondOA #OpenAccess
"PREreview 2025 Annual Report" header on top-right corner. An inverted red trapezoid shape representing the path opening in front, with a QR code on the bottom leading to the PREreview Strategic Plan in Zenodo. "There's an exciting road ahead!" title at the bottom of the page
Today we published the Strategic Plan that will shape PREreview’s work over the next three years. By 2029, we aim to shift norms in research assessment so they reflect the values of equity, openness, and care.
👉 Read our 3Y Strategic Plan: doi.org/10.5281/zeno...
At @unileiden.bsky.social we are proud to launch our Strategic Publication Framework! www.staff.universiteitleiden.nl/news/2025/12...
We are revisiting our publication practices, strengthening our commitment to open science, and aligning our publication choices and recognition and reward policies.
@ludowaltman.bsky.social Do you think cOAlition S has lost or is fast losing trust with a lot of people within the publishing field? In one way, funders like Gates, HHMI, etc. coming out with independent policies will help cOAlition S's cause. But, I'm not sure if their approach would be effective!
Great to see that cOAlition S is going to enhance its "focus on sustainable and equitable models, such as PRC, diamond open access and preprints".
This aligns with some of the work we are doing at @cwts.nl and in @rorinstitute.bsky.social.
✍️ Advance the Culture of Peer Review with Preprints!🚀
Tips for researchers:
✨ Request reviews and feedback for your next preprint
✨Write preprint reviews
✨Agree to review preprints
✨Convert journal clubs to a preprint review club
✨List preprint reviews on your lab website
💯this: "Community is not a nice-to-have; it is the foundation of lasting cultural change" - This article presents a fantastic read on the need for community efforts for Open Science to progress!
#Community #OpenScience #Engagement #Culture #Change #Academia
www.themodernpeer.com/the-loss-of-...
It was a pleasure to share my thoughts on Open Access through the #LinkedIn profile of Trevor Mundel, President of Global Health, Gates Foundation, on account of #OAWeek! @openaccessmaven.bsky.social @sparcopen.bsky.social
#OpenAccess #OpenScience #OpenResearch
www.linkedin.com/feed/update/...
"The story of diamond #OA is still being written. Its rise reflects a powerful shift toward scholarly communication as a public good.. But... ideals alone cannot sustain journals." Great post on @scholarlykitchen.bsky.social by my fellow chef Maryam Sayab scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2025/10/15/d...
"All solutions need not scale to inspire and instruct"! 💯
💯!
Oh yes, @prereview.bsky.social is amazing!
I don't know about vested interests but I think one of the stumbling blocks in P-R-C is due to our lack of clarity & consensus about the "C". We don't know what & how we are going to curate and what that product of curation is gonna look like.
But, yes, transparent, honest, inclusive discussion ✅!
Yes, so then do we also need to define what *changes* are? Should they only be changes in response to peer review or editorial assessment?
I get your point about preprints just getting "branded" analogous to a journal!
For point no. 1, I think we then need to define what constitutes a change! Will it be any kind of a change or those resulting only from peer review/editorial assessment? How will it differ from preprint versioning (which will have a separate DOI ayway)?
I understand that all info could be displayed alongside a preprint. But, don't you think a reviewed preprint, displayed along with review reports (with or without an editorial assessment) & hosted on a different platform could have a separate DOI? "Reviewed preprint" could be a formal category!
I think it's best to have just 1 identifier if there's no particular necessity for the same object to have multiple ones of the same kind. You rightly refer to versioning & the same may apply to any change an object goes through (like withdrawal or retraction)!
Oh, I just read through that part & it sounds crazy! I've always remained sceptical of researcher surveys as I don't know if they actually know what they want...!
(2/2) Formalizing "Reviewed Preprints" as a category will have important implications for the P-R-C model & to meaningfully take forward the work undertaken by preprint reviewing platforms like @reviewcommons.org @prereview.bsky.social @peercommunityin.bsky.social @elife.bsky.social, etc.! #PRC
(1/2) For the 2nd question, I feel we need an entirely different assignment type like "Reviewed Preprint" or "Assessed Preprint" (for reviewed preprints with editorial assessment)! @ludowaltman.bsky.social @andre-brasil.bsky.social @rorinstitute.bsky.social @crossref.bsky.social @elife.bsky.social
@ludowaltman.bsky.social @andre-brasil.bsky.social & @crossref.bsky.social are requesting input on #DOI registration for P-R-C model!
Speaks for the impact that @biorxivpreprint.bsky.social & @medrxivpreprint.bsky.social have come to have on the field!
And the exemplary work led by @richardsever.bsky.social @johninglis.bsky.social - both very much deserving of The Royal Society Research Culture Award 2025!
Preprints need not work against journals, but preprints needn't also be dependent on journals - it'll take quite some time for people to just preprint their work & opt for preprint reviewing (we've just gotten out of not Googling the IF of bioRxiv!!! 😄)!
This is interesting - it'll make institutions take more (almost complete) responsibility for integrity issues but they may also want to invest significant money (& possibly human resource) to make these checks available for everyone!
"To immediately cap APCs risks turning publishers focused on quality into those that may need to focus on quantity..." - APCs have already made publishers focus on quantity (with or without focus on quality)! Sounds ironic!
Okay, thanks!
Being planned as a hybrid event?
Yes, and I think many funders now actibely mandating preprints has the potential to positively influence the research community towards embracing preprintsand preprint review!
James Butcher, in one of his newsletters, wrote: "many funders believe that they should be able to dictate how and where the work they pay for is published. That’s a dangerous, if increasingly well-trodden, path, in my opinion".
Funders seem to be changing the course of publishing quite swiftly!