NanoBubbles
LightNews LightNews
banner
nanobubbles.bsky.social
NanoBubbles
@nanobubbles.bsky.social
180 followers 250 following 17 posts
🇪🇺 ERC-Syn-2020 - How, when & why does science fail to correct itself?
🔗 Our blog: https://nanobubbles.hypotheses.org/
🗞️ Subscribe to our newsletter: http://bit.ly/3Ae2UIe
📆 2021 - 2026
🌉 [email protected]
✒️ Account run by Yagmur Ozturk
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
nanobubbles.bsky.social
NanoBubbles @nanobubbles.bsky.social · 3d
📣 Submit to our track 'Making Science Better?' at the STS NL Conference which will take place in Twente from April 15 to 17, 2026! More details in the link below.

🔗 www.utwente.nl/en/bms/sts-n...
STS NL CONFERENCE 2026 banner with the track proposal titled 'Making Science Better?'
Reposted by NanoBubbles
raphavisses.bsky.social
Prize and lies

Three years ago, I asked in a blog post here What do scientific prizes celebrates? It was a reaction to false claims in press releases by the King Faisal Price and Northwestern University announcing the award of the 2023 King Faisal Prize in Medicine and Science to Chad Mirkin. One…
Prize and lies
Three years ago, I asked in a blog post here What do scientific prizes celebrates? It was a reaction to false claims in press releases by the King Faisal Price and Northwestern University announcing the award of the 2023 King Faisal Prize in Medicine and Science to Chad Mirkin. One of the false claims was that spherical nucleic acids were the basis for more than 1,800 commercial products…
raphazlab.wordpress.com
December 4, 2025 at 5:29 PM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
pharmed-out.bsky.social
Bernisson and Sismondo: How big is the medical writing industry? Why it matters
> 1000 medical education and communication companies (MECCS) provide medical writing services, mostly sponsored by pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology companies
academic.oup.com/heapro/artic...
How big is the medical writing industry? Why it matters
Abstract. Medical writing is a key element in pharmaceutical companies’ efforts to shape the relevant medical science literature. As part of what is called
academic.oup.com
September 8, 2025 at 2:06 PM
nanobubbles.bsky.social
📣 Submit to our track 'Making Science Better?' at the STS NL Conference which will take place in Twente from April 15 to 17, 2026! More details in the link below.

🔗 www.utwente.nl/en/bms/sts-n...
STS NL CONFERENCE 2026 banner with the track proposal titled 'Making Science Better?'
December 5, 2025 at 10:44 AM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
willemhalffman.bsky.social
One imaginary sees the scientific literature as a gigantic library, with texts to be read. Another sees it as a database, with facts to be mined. Our analysis clarifies contrasting expectations informing current publishing innovations, and their epistemic and political risks.
doi.org/10.1007/s110...
The Library and the Database: Contrasting Expectations in Two Imaginaries for the Research Literature - Minerva
Two competing imaginaries inform the current wave of innovations in research publishing: one that perceives ‘the literature’ as a library of research accounts, and one that sees it as a gigantic datab...
doi.org
December 4, 2025 at 10:54 AM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
peercommunityin.bsky.social
In case you have missed Simine Vazire's excellent webinar yesterday, here is the link to watch it online: youtu.be/_vb1CNwC3CM Thanks again @simine.com for staying up so late and thanks to the audience for the great questions!
PCI Webinar series #13 - Simine Vazire - Recognizing and responding to a replication crisis
youtu.be
December 2, 2025 at 10:17 AM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
lseimpactblog.bsky.social
👀ICYMI: "if the drain has a particular history and geography, it means that it is not inevitable. It can be resisted."

#AcademicSky #HigherEd #ScholComm
Money, Time, Trust, Control – How commercial publishers drain science - Impact of Social Sciences
Have the interests of commercial publishers now become antithetical to the pursuit of knowledge?
blogs.lse.ac.uk
November 26, 2025 at 4:41 PM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
jacksonwryan.com
On the Factor Fexcectorn and autism bicycle AI slop study: I got an answer from Springer Nature this morning that this scientific paper will be retracted! 🧪

Full story: nobreakthroughs.substack.com/p/riding-the...
Riding the Autism Bicycle to Retraction Town
Does anyone *really* know their Factor Fexcectorn?
nobreakthroughs.substack.com
November 28, 2025 at 5:25 AM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
reproducibilitea.org
📽️ Paper Mills: Parallels with a Virus / with Dorothy Bishop @deevybee.bsky.social

www.helsinki.fi/fi/unitube/v...

The event was organised by ReproducibiliTea UniHelsinki
ReproducibiliTea_UniHelsinki webinar: Paper Mills: Parallels with a Virus | Helsingin yliopisto
www.helsinki.fi
November 27, 2025 at 8:38 AM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
freddie2310.bsky.social
OpenAlex intégré au Web of Science, ou la capture du travail des “commoners” | carnetist.hypotheses.org/2572
OpenAlex intégré au Web of Science, ou la capture du travail des “commoners”
C’est une annonce qui est passée relativement inaperçue, mais qui mérite que l’on s’y arrête un instant. Clarivate a récemment annoncé l’intégration d’OpenAlex comme une nouvelle base de données au se...
carnetist.hypotheses.org
November 25, 2025 at 7:11 AM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
dsquintana.bsky.social
There is no reason why systematic reviews can't be open. The data used for synthesis is *already* open and there are many excellent open source tools that can facilitate the easy sharing of analysis scripts.

Here's a nice guide for performing open systematic reviews doi.org/10.1525/coll...
This paper provides guidance and tools for conducting open and reproducible systematic reviews in psychology. It emphasizes the importance of systematic reviews for evidence-based decision-making and the growing adoption of open science practices. Open science enhances transparency, reproducibility, and minimizes bias in systematic reviews by sharing data, materials, and code. It also fosters collaborations and enables involvement of non-academic stakeholders. The paper is designed for beginners, offering accessible guidance to navigate the many standards and resources that may not obviously align with specific areas of psychology. It covers systematic review conduct standards, pre-registration, registered reports, reporting standards, and open data, materials and code. The paper is concluded with a glimpse of recent innovations like Community Augmented Meta-Analysis and independent reproducibility checks.
November 24, 2025 at 12:10 PM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
cosig.net
Scientific articles often report data in tables. COSIG's latest guide covers methods to export these tables into a spreadsheet editor like Microsoft Excel!

COSIG (32 guides and growing!) is available at cosig.net.
New guide: Extracting tabular data from an article cosig.net
November 24, 2025 at 4:13 PM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
lucileveissier.bsky.social
My paper about the ScienceGuardians on @themeta.news today!

@elisabethbik.bsky.social @lonnibesancon.bsky.social @thatsregrettab1.bsky.social
themeta.news 𝖳𝗁𝖾𝖬𝖾𝗍𝖺𝖭𝖾𝗐𝗌 @themeta.news · 17d
🟢 La galaxie de la science a ses Guardians ?

Un groupe anonyme sévit sur les réseaux depuis un an, ciblant principalement les détectives de la littérature scientifique : les ScienceGuardians

Notre enquête : themeta.news/les-scienceg...

#VeilleESR #ResearchIntegrity
Analyse Les ScienceGuardians, fantômes de l’intégrité Un groupe d’activistes anonymes s’emploie depuis près d’un an à suivre, voire à menacer juridiquement, les détectives de l’intégrité scientifique. Chroniques d’une guerre invisible. « Les ScienceGuardians prétendent que nous sommes tous des fraudeurs mais n’apportent aucune preuve » Elisabeth Bik, détective
November 21, 2025 at 10:58 AM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
lseimpactblog.bsky.social
💥New: Do acts to correct the scientific record need to move out of the shadows?

✍️ @freddie2310.bsky.social

#AcademicSky #Corrections #AcWri
Do acts to correct the scientific record need to move out of the shadows? - Impact of Social Sciences
Scientists prefer to correct errors in the scientific record informally, but is this a sustainable mechanism in expanding world of global research?
blogs.lse.ac.uk
November 20, 2025 at 4:00 PM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
retractionwatch.com
A paper critiquing post-publication peer review has numerous made-up references, including a @nature.com article falsely attributed to our Ivan Oransky.
link.springer.com/article/10.1...
PubPeer - An expert criticism on post-publication peer review platform...
There are comments on PubPeer for publication: An expert criticism on post-publication peer review platforms: the case of pubpeer (2025)
pubpeer.com
November 16, 2025 at 9:11 AM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
elisabethbik.bsky.social
How the Avalanche of Academic Papers Threatens Scientific Research, by Vince Bielski
'Editor-in-Chief Anna Stilz at @ucberkeleyofficial.bsky.social led a revolt that culminated in the mass resignation of the journal’s entire editorial staff and board.'
www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/202...
How the Avalanche of Academic Papers Threatens Scientific Research
This is the third part of a series on academic publishing. Read part one here and part two here. For many years, the prestigious journal Philosophy & Public Affairs published about
www.realclearinvestigations.com
November 20, 2025 at 9:39 AM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
cosig.net
COSIG has a new mascot but he doesn't yet have a name! Any suggestions?
A mottled gray Chinese giant salamander wearing a deerstalker peers into a magnifying glass. He holds a copy of COSIG in his right hand (foot? limb? idk).
November 19, 2025 at 3:12 PM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
retractionwatch.com
In an ironic and possibly predictable turn of events, the conference has received “an unusually large proportion” of off-topic abstracts that show signs of being written by generative AI.
Research integrity conference hit with AI-generated abstracts
The first of three themes for next year’s World Conference on Research Integrity will be the risks and benefits of artificial intelligence for research integrity. In an ironic and possibly predicta…
retractionwatch.com
November 18, 2025 at 6:06 PM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
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
Reposted by NanoBubbles
elisabethbik.bsky.social
Live posting day 2 of the International Research Integrity Conference in Sydney.
researchintegrityconf.com/internationa...
We start with session 4: What might work?
Cyril Labbe with "Detection of Research Rubbish and More"
#IRICSydney
Title slide The speaker at the lectern
November 17, 2025 at 10:05 PM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
cosig.net
The FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) is useful for identifying potential adverse events associated with drugs. However, its data is often exploited to produce articles reporting spurious drug risks.

COSIG's entry on formulaic research now covers low-quality pharmacovigilance studies!
COSIG: The Collection of Open Science Integrity Guides Newest version available at cosig.net!
November 14, 2025 at 6:41 PM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
cosig.net
Check out the latest issue of REACH magazine from @sci-integrity.com, which features COSIG on page 42!

www.sci-integrity.com/reach-octobe...
REACH October-December 2025 | Science Integrity Alliance
REACH is a modern, interactive, and comprehensive digital magazine designed to meet the shared needs of all stakeholders in the research community.
www.sci-integrity.com
November 16, 2025 at 2:52 PM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
sci-integrity.com
✨The new issue of REACH is live!
If you’re looking for inspiring weekend reading, I hope you’ll enjoy exploring this new issue.📗

🗣️ Share it with your colleagues or anyone who might find it useful.
🔗 www.sci-integrity.com/reach-octobe...

#openscience #researchintegrity #REACHmagazine #SIA
November 15, 2025 at 2:55 PM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
cosig.net
COSIG has a new landing page! Check it out at cosig.net.

(Files for COSIG are still hosted on OSF!)
The new landing page for COSIG, available at cosig.net. It reads: Anyone can do post-publication peer review. Anyone can be a steward of the scientific literature. Anyone can do forensic metascience. Anyone can sleuth. However, investigating the integrity of the published scientific literature often requires domain-specific knowledge that not everyone will have. This open source project is a collection of guides written and maintained by publication integrity experts to distribute this domain-specific knowledge so that others can participate in post-publication peer review. COSIG currently hosts 31 guides and was last updated on 25 September 2025. Guides can be downloaded as individual PDFs. A combined PDF with all guides included can be downloaded here.
October 17, 2025 at 12:41 PM
nanobubbles.bsky.social
📣 This Tuesday, October 28, from 11:00 to 12:30, we are hosting a seminar by Willem Halffman at LISIS titled
“The library and the database: two imaginaries for the research literature”

Join us (there will be a buffet!)

@umr-lisis.bsky.social @willemhalffman.bsky.social @isis-radboud.bsky.social
October 26, 2025 at 9:58 AM
Reposted by NanoBubbles
accountabilityair.bsky.social
📝 Latest Publication Alert! 📝

"On and off-the-record correction practices: A survey-based study of how chemistry researchers react to errors"

freddie2310.bsky.social

→ doi.org/10.1080/0898...

#ResearchOnResearch
#ResearchIntegrity
#Science
#ScienceErrors
#Researchers
On and off-the-record correction practices: A survey-based study of how chemistry researchers react to errors
This survey-based study (982 participants) explores chemistry researchers’ practices and motivations in correcting errors in scientific publications.While respondents believe errors should be corre...
doi.org
October 3, 2025 at 3:09 PM