iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

Vincent Heidelberg ↙️↙️↙️ @astrovicnet.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

C'est 9 fois et demi la durée de l'emprisonnement de Sarko pour avoir négocié avec des terroristes pour financer sa campagne, et c'est 6 mois de plus que Marine Le Pen, qui a détourné 4 millions d'euros.

181074817

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

Peer Community In @peercommunityin.bsky.social · 25/09/2026

💬 Does a PCI recommendation mean that my paper is published? No. A PCI recommendation is the outcome of a positive and public peer-review process. Once your preprint has been recommended, you can choose what comes next! 👉 peercommunityin.org/submit-a-pre...

peercommunityin.org

Submit a preprint to PCI - Peer Community In

Once an article has been recommended by a PCI, the authors can opt to leave it on a preprint server, to publish it in PCI Journal, to submit it to a PCI-friendly journal or to any other journal

053

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

Ouvrir la science @ouvrirlascience.bsky.social · 16/09/2026

📢Le Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Espace dévoile la nouvelle Stratégie de science ouverte (SSO) 2026-2033 ! www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/fr/lancement... @enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr @marind.eurosky.social

01413

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

PCI Archaeology @pciarchaeology.bsky.social · 17/09/2026

Great news for archaeologists with a new PCI-Friendly journal! The Journal of Archaeological Science now accepts PCI Archaeology-recommended preprints, with fast feedback on *direct publication* or further evaluation. #OpenScience #Archaeology 🧪🏺 A new path for your next paper!

0158

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

PCI Archaeology @pciarchaeology.bsky.social · 22/08/2026

Saturday reminder! Here is how to publish good and trnsparent science for free 👇👇👇 @peercommunityin.bsky.social @peercomjournal.bsky.social

Process in 4 steps to publish a scientific paper in PC Journal through the PCI evaluation process

021

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

PCI Archaeology @pciarchaeology.bsky.social · 16/06/2026

1/3 New recommendation: Angelos Tsilogiannis, Markos Konstantakis, Spyros Vosinakis (2026). Experimental interpretation of ancient games through playtesting. V4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI #Archaeology doi.org/10.5281/zeno... 🏺🧪🦣 #OpenScience #openaccess

Figure 1 from the preprint: The 10*9 board with the wooden bowls placed next to it. On the board are different formations and placements players would experiment with.

Figure 2 from the preprint: Diagram that shows the sequence of play sessions that constitute a Lineage

1105

Alain Queffelec @alainqueffelec.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

Such a nice first mission for this collaboration! Super nice people and super interesting material to study! 📿🔬🧪🏺

010

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

Richard J Hewitt @richardjhewitt.bsky.social · 24/04/2026

Great initiative, sounds a little like @peercomjournal.bsky.social another excellent project which I highly recommend & encourage everyone to support!

095

Alain Queffelec @alainqueffelec.bsky.social · 18/04/2026

Et dire qu'on nous raconte que nos photos de cailloux au travail sont protégées par le droit d'auteur justement à cause de ce qui est écrit ici noir sur blanc comme n'entrant pas du tout dans une création artistique : cadrage, lumière, choix de l'objet etc.

020

Alain Queffelec @alainqueffelec.bsky.social · 17/04/2026

Paper now published in the diamond open-access @peercomjournal.bsky.social , in the archaeology section, with tens of other papers! Join us! peercommunityjournal.org/articles/10....

peercommunityjournal.org

Replication report for Marwick (2025) “Is archaeology a science?”, including new data from OpenAlex

000

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

PCI Archaeology @pciarchaeology.bsky.social · 17/04/2026

4/3 Now published in the generalist diamond open-access @peercomjournal.bsky.social , for free, without more peer-reviews: doi.org/10.24072/pcj...

doi.org

Replication report for Marwick (2025) “Is archaeology a science?”, including new data from OpenAlex

011

Alain Queffelec @alainqueffelec.bsky.social · 09/04/2026

It was so interesting to reproduce @benmarwick.bsky.social 's paper and to try to replicate it with openalex.org data. OpenAlex is bigger & more inclusive than commercial databases—but it still lacks many cited references, just like @opencitations.bsky.social. We need to push for more #opencitations

161

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

UCL Institute of Archaeology @uclarchaeology.bsky.social · 04/03/2026

The UCL Institute of Archaeology currently has a vacancy for a Lecturer (Teaching) in Archaeology and Anthropology (Ref.: B03-02939). Further info & link to application here: 📲 bit.ly/3OKUMdw 1/2

bit.ly

Job Vacancy: Lecturer (Teaching) in Archaeology and Anthropology

The UCL Institute of Archaeology currently has a vacancy for a Lecturer (Teaching) in Archaeology and Anthropology (Ref.: B03-02939).

136

Alain Queffelec @alainqueffelec.bsky.social · 02/03/2026

Antoine Souron told me: Olduvai bed 2 (theropitecus cranium with fracture and cut marks). Shinfa-Metema 1 (cut marks in monkey in Supp Info p. 15 Kappelman et al. 2024 Nature) South-East Asia : butchery on primates published.

120

Alain Queffelec @alainqueffelec.bsky.social · 23/01/2026

New version of my reproduction and replication attempt of @benmarwick.bsky.social 's paper published few months ago in JAS, but here with #OpenAlex and #OpenCitations data. You can read it in a interactive html page here: aqueff.github.io/replication_... 🧪🏺

Figure 1 from the preprint: Comparison of Web of Science (Wos), OpenAlex (OA), and OpenCitations (OC) data for the articles present in the three datasets. A. Number of authors, B. Length of the title, C. Number of pages, D. Attributed year, E. Number of references. For each plot, a dashed-line represents y = x.

Figure 5 of the preprint: Biplot of the first and second principal components of a PCA computed on the means of the five bibliometric variables for each journal in the sample. The arrows represent the correlation between each original variable and the principal components. The direction and length of the arrows indicate how strongly each variable contributes to each component.

Figure 6 of the preprint: Variation in bibliometric indicators of hardness for 25 archaeological journals based on OpenAlex data. The journals are ordered for each indicator so that within each plot, the harder journals are at the top of the plot and the softer journals are at the base. Panel F shows a bar plot that is the single consensus ranking computed from all five variables, using the Borda Count ranking algorithm.

111

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

Peer Community In @peercommunityin.bsky.social · 15/01/2026

The PCI-PCJ 2025 recap is here! ✨ Dive into the events of 2025 👀: peercommunityin.org/2026/01/07/p... Huge thanks to everyone who contributed to an amazing year! 🙏 #PCI2025 #Highlights

0209

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

Université de Bordeaux @univbordeaux.bsky.social · 13/01/2026

🦴 Des fossiles humains mis au jour près de Casablanca apportent un éclairage inédit sur une période clé de l’évolution humaine - des travaux incluant des chercheurs du laboratoire de la Préhistoire à l’actuel : culture, environnement et anthropologie @pacea.bsky.social www.pacea.u-bordeaux...

042

Alain Queffelec @alainqueffelec.bsky.social · 22/12/2025

I didn't check the review reports yet

000

Alain Queffelec @alainqueffelec.bsky.social · 22/12/2025

I would say there is no clue at all that they were weathered in situ. So yes could be pigment, could be just nice looking rocks collected because they're shiny and/or their nice shape. But should not be "pyrite" everywhere in text and figures and press.

110

Alain Queffelec @alainqueffelec.bsky.social · 20/12/2025

If only the two fragments were made of pyrite Becky. You can find a very short sentence saying the contrary in the text. And then must go to the SI to find the XRD analysis: goethite+hematite. Could have been gathered as pyrite... Or not...

120

Alain Queffelec @alainqueffelec.bsky.social · 20/12/2025

It's not just about label, it's also that no one can assura that it was not already oxidized when the humans gathered these fragments. It could have been pyrite (or even marcassite) by the time the humans brought it, but it could have been already goethite+hematite.

000

Alain Queffelec @alainqueffelec.bsky.social · 20/12/2025

I'm happy I finally find somewhere someone who point our that the two rock fragments *are not* pyrite! Thank you John. But you need to go to the SI to see the XRD analysis of one of the main find of the article. And all along the paper (text figures legends) it's labeled pyrite.

100

Alain Queffelec @alainqueffelec.bsky.social · 20/12/2025

Should we tag all these 42 papers on platforms like @pubpeer.com ? If there is this kind of citation in the paper maybe it's a red flag?

090

Alain Queffelec @alainqueffelec.bsky.social · 09/12/2025

Happy to have been part of this super interesting paper!

020

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

Eleni Seferidou @eleniseferidou.bsky.social · 14/11/2025

Our paper "Rethinking Caribbean Archaeology: Towards an ethical position for a truly decolonial practice" was published today at @pciarchaeology.bsky.social Many thanks to all the authors for this amazing collaboration! 🎊 📎 peercommunityjournal.org/articles/10....

peercommunityjournal.org

Rethinking Caribbean Archaeology: Towards an ethical position for a truly decolonial practice

043

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

PCI Archaeology @pciarchaeology.bsky.social · 12/11/2025

To stop the drain, do not hesitate to engage with #free #openscience, #preprints, @peercommunityin.bsky.social, #diamondOA journals, academia-friendly journals (dafnee.isem-evolution.fr) etc. THERE ARE SOLUTIONS !

dafnee.isem-evolution.fr

DAFNEE, a Database of Academia Friendly jourNals in Ecology and Evolution

082

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 11/11/2025

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.

8644453

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

PACEA laboratory, Human evolution, Prehistory @pacea.bsky.social · 03/11/2025

The IRN Bipedal Equilibrium team is running an international survey on hominin bipedalism. They aim to better understand how scholars think about bipedalism. Perspectives from all fields are welcome! 👉 Here is the survey link: questions.huma-num.fr/v4/s/dv57r1 (10 min) Please share it widely! 🏺🧪🦣

questions.huma-num.fr

143

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

Paul Smaldino @psmaldino.bsky.social · 09/05/2025

As grant money starts drying up, it's more important than ever not to waste it on paying publishers' open access "article processing fees" when we can host PDFs for free. Tom Morgan and I wrote a paper on this, forthcoming at Science and Public Policy. Accepted draft here: osf.io/preprints/os...

Author-Paid PublicationFees Corrupt Science and Should Be Abandoned
Thomas J. H Morgan & Paul E. Smaldino

10408140

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

Peer Community In @peercommunityin.bsky.social · 22/08/2025

Many thanks to Karlstad University for becoming a supporter of PCI this year (www.kau.se/en)%F0%9F%98...!

071

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

PCI Archaeology @pciarchaeology.bsky.social · 21/08/2025

⬇️⬇️⬇️ Also worth reading for other domains than health sciences! 👏

023

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

PCI Archaeology @pciarchaeology.bsky.social · 09/08/2025

1/3 New recommendation: Zachary Batist‬ (2025) Locating Creative Agency in Archaeological Data Work. ver.2 recommended by @pciarchaeology.bsky.social doi.org/10.17613/8eq... @zackbatist.archaeo.social.ap.brid.gy 🏺🧪🦣

Figure 5 from the manuscript: Two photographs of fieldwork with arrows pointing at details and text in boxes explaining the details of how spatial information is recorded in the field. First photograph depicts a system that measures distance in relation to trench entities. Second photograph depicts a geospatial specialist and a fieldworker determining an object’s position using a digital theodolite.

122

Alain Queffelec @alainqueffelec.bsky.social · 06/08/2025

Come join us with this new post-doctoral position in the Quanta project: emploi.cnrs.fr/Offres/CDD/U... (2 years in Bordeaux) If you love artifacts (especially bones), notches, microscopes, and exploring the big question of the origin of quantification systems in human lineage, this is for you!

emploi.cnrs.fr

Portail Emploi CNRS - Offre d'emploi - Postdoctoral contract on the origin of quantification systems M/F

087

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

PAASTA Community @paastacommunity.bsky.social · 06/08/2025

Delighted to be bringing you the following PAASTA community-led paper outlining our recommendations for best practices and open science in palaeoproteomics! Congratulations to the authors and for anyone keen to read the paper, it can be found #OpenAccess here: doi.org/10.24072/pcj...

01710

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

The IsoArcH initiative @isoarch.bsky.social · 25/07/2025

New look, same mission 🔬🌍 The IsoArcH initiative just launched its brand-new website: isoarch.org Check it out and dive into the world’s largest isotope database!

052

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

PCI Archaeology @pciarchaeology.bsky.social · 22/07/2025

1/3 New recommendation: Cardillo, Marcelo & Carranza, Eugenia ‬ (2025) Applying statistical and causal modeling to interpret thermal alteration in observational lithic data. doi.org/10.5281/zeno... 🧪🏺

$Figure 2 from the manuscript. Top panel: effects of fire on the landscape observed in 2021 and 2022. Bottom panel: burned surface lithic scatters showing effects such as fractures and color changes.$ Figure 3 from the manuscript: Causal model for mechanical alterations of pebbles under the effect of fire. Red, direct and mediation effects (Fire -unmeasured-, Fissures, Rock_Type and Shape). Gray, latent unobserved variables (Biomass, Knapping and Trampling). Green, outcome variable (Mech_Alt).

Figure 3 from the manuscript: Causal model for mechanical alterations of pebbles under the effect of fire. Red, direct and mediation effects (Fire -unmeasured-, Fissures, Rock_Type and Shape). Gray, latent unobserved variables (Biomass, Knapping and Trampling). Green, outcome variable (Mech_Alt).

121

Alain Queffelec @alainqueffelec.bsky.social · 21/07/2025

Will read your paper with interest. Currently, this map with these circles is really not clear for me ! 🙂

110

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

Nicolas Galtier @nicolasgaltier.bsky.social · 17/07/2025

Needless to say, the Peer Community In outperforms all of the major publishers on this criterion, despite a budget many orders of magnitude smaller - again illustrating that the big money we pay for publishing is not used for the good of science. (5/5) @peercommunityin.bsky.social

02011

Reposted by Alain Queffelec

Nicolas Galtier @nicolasgaltier.bsky.social · 17/07/2025

Non-profit publishers (PLoS, Oxford, Cambridge) and publishers partnering a lot with academia (Wiley) are much more committed to open science than the others - MDPI being the worst by large. (4/5)

figure showing nine data points (each for a distinct publisher) in a graph where Y-axis is our open science index and X-axis is academia friendliness (=proportion of published journals co-owned by an academic entity); strong positive relationship

43727