Absolutely fantastic to see such a statement and one that is very much needed. Things appear to be moving in the right direction - we wrote an op-ed on this topic back in March, linked in the next section.

This response from Sam Moore is an excellent argument for why the CRUK approach is bad.

This focusses on the impact AI is having, through the lens of Figshare. The signal-noise ratio is definitely being hit by LLMs.

There are many thoughts on the model that VeriXiv are using with the multiple checks and validation they do but it’s definitely an interesting experiment. Great to see the kind of adoption it’s getting too - particularly in Africa.

This is a fantastic step if organisations use this to pivot towards much greater support of green OA. Though announcement itself is confusing.

Excellent analysis that shows ORCiD mandates result in an increase in profiles but that these profiles are empty and unused. “early adopters (pre-2018) created ORCID profiles because they found them useful — those profiles are rich. Recent adopters (2022+) were pushed by mandates — those profiles are overwhelmingly empty. This replicates the pattern from publisher-gap: mandates move numbers, not quality”.

This is a fantastic read

The paper with the longest delay in this dataset? almost 9 years!

This feels wildly off the mark. Many universities already pre-select proposals so the suggestion here would do nothing more than further move the goalposts. It’s these kind of poorly thought out ideas that push researchers away from engaging in reform efforts and surprising to see from RORI.

“we identify a ‘silent standpoint’ among the participating male professors: the idea that women are generally less qualified than men as candidates for full professorships.”

“91 percent of them had participated in at least one QRP, 32 percent had participated in six or more”

Great new plugin to check Zotero entries against a replication database.

Reviewer3 conducted this test and it shows definite promise for the role of AI in lifting some of the peer review burden and tasks.

A very good response to the latest study on reproducibility. This piece is actually much more appropriate in tone than many scientists I’ve seen in talking about reproducibility.

“Our results imply that replicability rate is not a reliable demarcation criterion for scientific results. The replication crisis, if there is one, cannot be established by the methods used to declare it.“