Cvrine Cvrai
LightNews LightNews
cvrine-cvrai.bsky.social
Cvrine Cvrai
@cvrine-cvrai.bsky.social
110 followers 350 following 2 posts
ESR, IGE, EHESS, ESO, ALEF...
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
danbrockington.bsky.social
Profits from scientific publishing are eye-watering, costing us billions. In ‘The Drain of Scientific Publishing’ (arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820), (building on ‘The Strain of Scientific Publishing’ doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00327) we show how it is harmful – and unnecessary.
The Drain of Scientific Publishing
The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science. We need the most powerful members of the research community, funders, governments and ...
arxiv.org
November 12, 2025 at 11:41 AM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
danbrockington.bsky.social
Are you puzzled and struggling with scientific publishing. Are pressed and stressed about the process, and worried about how much it costs?

Then please read this fanastic thread from Mark Hanson
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 20d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 12:21 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
cvrine-cvrai.bsky.social
Sarkozy : 2,5 millions de patrimoine en 2007, plus de 9 millions en 2025, ça paye bien d'entuber les Français et de détruire toute moralité, beau boulot, belle perf !
November 11, 2025 at 5:18 AM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
michaelzemmour.cpesr.fr
Claire Mathieu: "Gouvernement et administrateurs doivent s'appliquer à eux-mêmes un principe de neutralité, et n'intervenir que pour protéger les débats, pas pour censurer ; et cela afin de protéger la liberté académique qui permet l’engagement en faveur de la vérité."

lipn.info/@clairemathi...
ClaireMathInfo (@[email protected])
Sur l'annulation du colloque "La Palestine et l'Europe" au Collège de France: pour quelles raisons ? La lettre de l'administrateur dit que le Collège doit éviter tout "militantisme" et puis parle de p...
lipn.info
November 10, 2025 at 3:33 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
franceuniversites.bsky.social
France Universités exprime sa vive inquiétude après l’annulation d’un colloque scientifique au Collège de France.
franceuniversites.fr/actualite/fr...
#LibertéAcadémique
November 10, 2025 at 3:38 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
nicolashenin.net
Demander l'annulation d'un concert politisé, c'est une attaque contre la liberté de programmation artistique, mais annuler un colloque au Collège de France, ce n'est pour son ministre de tutelle qu'une décision "responsable" 🙃
Le Collège de France annule un colloque sur la Palestine « en réaction à la polémique entourant » l’événement
Le Collège de France « ne prône, ni n’encourage, ni ne soutient aucune forme de militantisme », a affirmé l’établissement qui assure de sa « stricte neutralité (…) au regard des questions de nature po...
www.lemonde.fr
November 9, 2025 at 2:18 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
crossref.bsky.social
25 years strong! Marin Dacos, one of our board members, shares their congratulations in this video. Let's ... https://www.canva.com/design/DAGsnR18d78/FLsjm3Mwfvq_UuGM6630rw/watch?utm_content=DAGsnR18d78&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link2&utm_source=uniquelinks&utlId=hbc361b5570 #CrossrefAt25
September 24, 2025 at 6:16 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
operaseu.bsky.social
#StrengtheningTrust #TacklingDisinformation | Niels Stern presents a practical perspective to tackle disinformation via DOAB and #PRISM.
The PRISM service offers publishers the opportunity to showcase their quality assurance practices, highlighting their peer review processes.

#ScienceSummit
September 10, 2025 at 1:49 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
vincent-lemire.bsky.social
• En conséquence l'IAGS appelle "les États membres de la CPI à coopérer avec la Cour et à remettre toute personne faisant l'objet d'un mandat d'arrêt".
genocidescholars.org
September 1, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
vincent-lemire.bsky.social
• "La politique et les actions d'Israël à Gaza répondent à la définition juridique du génocide énoncée à l'article 2 de la Convention des Nations Unies pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (1948)".
genocidescholars.org
September 1, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
vincent-lemire.bsky.social
• EXTRAITS: "Le gouvernement israélien s'est rendu coupable de crimes contre l'humanité, de crimes de guerre et de crimes de génocide systématiques, notamment d'attaques aveugles et délibérées contre les civils et les infrastructures civiles (hôpitaux, habitations, bâtiments commerciaux).
genocidescholars.org
September 1, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
vincent-lemire.bsky.social
À ce jour, ces attaques ont tué plus de 59.000 adultes et enfants à Gaza. Ces bombardements et autres violences ont fait plus de 143.000 blessés, dont de nombreux mutilés".
genocidescholars.org
September 1, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
vincent-lemire.bsky.social
• "Israël a tué ou blessé plus de 50.000 enfants et la destruction d'une partie importante de ce groupe constitue un génocide".
• "Ces crimes ont laissé des milliers de personnes ensevelies sous les décombres et inaccessibles, très probablement mortes.
genocidescholars.org
September 1, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
vincent-lemire.bsky.social
• "Les actions du gouvernement israélien contre les Palestiniens incluent la torture, la détention arbitraire et les violences sexuelles; les attaques délibérées contre des professionnels de la santé, les travailleurs humanitaires et les journalistes ; …
genocidescholars.org
September 1, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
vincent-lemire.bsky.social
… la privation délibérée de nourriture, d'eau, de médicaments et d'électricité, essentielles à la survie de la population, entraînant la famine chez les Palestiniens de Gaza".
genocidescholars.org
September 1, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
vincent-lemire.bsky.social
• "Israël a déplacé de force la quasi-totalité des 2,3 millions d'habitants à plusieurs reprises et a démoli plus de 90 % des habitation du territoire".
genocidescholars.org
September 1, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
vincent-lemire.bsky.social
• "Le Premier ministre israélien Benjamin Netanyahou a approuvé le plan visant à expulser de force tous les Palestiniens de la bande de Gaza, sans droit au retour".
genocidescholars.org
September 1, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
vincent-lemire.bsky.social
• "Les dirigeants du gouvernement israélien, les ministres du cabinet de guerre et les hauts gradés de l'armée ont fait des déclarations explicites d'"intention de détruire", qualifiant l'ensemble des habitants d'"animaux humains", affirmant leur intention d'"anéantir Gaza".
genocidescholars.org
September 1, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
vincent-lemire.bsky.social
>> Ne vous contentez pas des extraits relayés par la presse ce soir, lisez et partagez la résolution complète ici: genocidescholars.org/wp-content/u...
#SANCTIONS #CeaseFireNOW #BringThemHomeNOW
genocidescholars.org
September 1, 2025 at 5:27 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
ludowaltman.bsky.social
Excellent news piece in @nature.com providing an overview of ongoing discussions about the organization of peer review in funding allocation and scientific publishing doi.org/10.1038/d415....

@rorinstitute.bsky.social @cwts.nl
The peer-review crisis: how to fix an overloaded system
Journals and funders are trying to boost the speed and effectiveness of review processes that are under strain.
doi.org
August 7, 2025 at 5:34 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
retractionwatch.com
Reviewer accused of stealing manuscript and publishing it as his own denies he refereed it
Reviewer accused of stealing manuscript and publishing it as his own denies he refereed it
An early-career researcher who discovered a nearly identical version of her manuscript published by the researcher who reviewed — and recommended rejecting — the work for another journal is still a…
retractionwatch.com
July 25, 2025 at 3:59 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
openculture.bsky.social
The Metropolitan Museum of Art Puts 490,000 High-Res Images Online & Makes Them Free to Use
The Metropolitan Museum of Art Puts 490,000 High-Res Images Online & Makes Them Free to Use
Update: The Metropolitan Museum of Art has put online 492,000 high-resolution images of artistic works. Even better, the museum has placed the vast majority of these images into the public domain, mea...
www.openculture.com
July 17, 2025 at 10:39 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
resprofnews.bsky.social
Nature publishes peer review comments alongside new papers.

All papers published in Nature from will include comments from peer reviewers as the journal aims to shed light on what it calls “the ‘black box’ of science”.

Among our most-read.

www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-worl...
Nature publishes peer review comments alongside new papers - Research Professional News
Change at flagship journal praised as publisher says it wants to open “black box”
www.researchprofessionalnews.com
June 22, 2025 at 8:03 PM
Reposted by Cvrine Cvrai
anna-r-hughes.bsky.social
Interested in increasing transparency of #PeerReview for #Monographs 🤚

Join this afternoon's webinar and learn more about #PRISM key features

💡Controlled vocabulary
💡Title-level detail
💡Catalogue-level overview
💡API integration

🔗 www.jisc.ac.uk/events/facet...
June 19, 2025 at 7:49 AM