iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

And ofc, @hannaherf.bsky.social and I teamed up via @snapcoalition.org 🤗

042

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

Applying to the @hhmi-science.bsky.social gilliam fellows program? Take note!

172

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

7/7 If we want scientists to stop chasing journal prestige, we have to stop rewarding them for chasing journal prestige. Change the incentives, and the culture can follow. @hannaherf.bsky.social and I make the case in @sciencepolitics.bsky.social: sciencepolitics.org/2026/08/17/s...

Science Doesn't Need Better Journals. It Needs Better Incentives. - Science Politics

Journal prestige shapes what science gets done, how fast it moves, and whose work gets seen. Pushing institutions to engage in open science can make the system more equitable.

21710

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

6/7 But scientists can’t change this alone. Funders and institutions need to make publishing, reviewing, and curating science actually count in grants, hiring, and promotion. And journals can evolve too: away from being gatekeepers of prestige and toward supporting review, synthesis, and curation.

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

5/7 Curation is key. Instead of outsourcing judgments of scientific value to journal brands, scientific communities can identify and elevate important work after it’s available for everyone to read and evaluate. Prestige tells you where something landed. Curation can tell you why it matters.

162

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

4/7 Our call to action is simple: Publish, Review, & Curate Publish research openly. Groups like @asapbio.bsky.social have helped show what a preprint-first future can look like. Review it openly and constructively. @prereview.bsky.social is helping build that culture. Then curate what matters.

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

3/7 Our argument: science doesn’t need another “better” journal. We need to rethink what journals currently bundle together: Publishing research. Evaluating research. Deciding what deserves attention. Those don’t have to be the same process.

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

2/7 We’ve built a system where the logo at the top of a paper can influence hiring, promotion, funding, and how seriously research is taken. So scientists understandably optimize for prestige. The problem isn’t individual scientists playing the game. It’s the incentives that created the game.

172

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

AAUP @aaup.org · 29/07/2026

1/7 Prestige sucks. Not because recognition is bad. But because science has spent decades confusing journal prestige with scientific quality. And that shapes what gets published, what gets rewarded, and ultimately what science gets done.

1187

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

“Genuine intellectual diversity requires time for reflection, institutional independence, historical depth, ethical questioning, & the freedom to pursue research unconstrained by immediate market demands. These conditions cannot flourish where knowledge itself has become increasingly commodified.”

truthout.org

Higher Ed Can’t Be Neutral in an Age of Brutality. It Must Choose Democracy.

Contemporary proponents of “institutional neutrality” fail to grasp that universities have never been outside politics.

4322131

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

Isako Di Tomassi @isakoditomassi.bsky.social · 02/07/2026

Join @snapcoalition.org tomorrow at 11 a.m. ET for an OMB Public Comment Writing "Power Hour"! They will have a short intro to what the proposed rule is, advice for writing your comment, and then ~10 minutes for writing each section. Register here: tiny.cc/OMBpowerhour #scipol #science #OMBrule

tiny.cc

Welcome! You are invited to join a meeting: SNAP OMB Public Comment Power Hour. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email about joining the meeting.

076

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

Cornell Advancing Science and Policy Club (ASAP) @cornellasap.bsky.social · 02/07/2026

Have you heard about the #OMBrule but don't know how to write your public comment? Come to the Power Hour! And here is some reading material in the meantime to share a perspective on what the proposed rule could mean for the next generation of scientists: sciencepolitics.org/2026/06/05/w...

What Happens to the Next Generation of Scientists if Politicians, Not Peers, Determine Research Funding - Science Politics

Fewer trainees today will mean fewer scientific discoveries tomorrow.

065

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

Scientist Network for Advancing Policy @snapcoalition.org · 16/06/2026

Join SNAP and @protectdemocracy.org to learn about how to write a public comment for the proposed OMB rule! Wednesday, June 17th at 5:30 p.m. ET Registration link here: us06web.zoom.us/meeting/regi... #SciPol #ECRs #science

54935

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

Annika Barber @annikabarber.bsky.social · 07/06/2026

Megathread resources now compiled in a Google doc. Send it to your friends. Share with your departments and trainees. And share with non-scientists! I also have a template for non-scientist comments, because this is an all-taxpayer, all medical service user issue. docs.google.com/document/d/1...

docs.google.com

Submit an OMB Comment!

SAVE AMERICAN SCIENCE (Please! 💜 Annika @annikabarber.bsky.social) What are the proposed changes to scientific grant review and award? Read the Federal Register directly here: Regulation for Federal...

29254

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

jp flores (he/him) @jpflores.rbind.io · 07/06/2026

A proposed OMB rule would allow political appointees to override scientific peer review when making federal research funding decisions. For ECRS, this isn’t abstract. It affects training, jobs, and future discoveries. Read more ⬇️ sciencepolitics.org/2026/06/05/w... From us @snapcoalition.org

What Happens to the Next Generation of Scientists if Politicians, Not Peers, Determine Research Funding - Science Politics

Fewer trainees today will mean fewer scientific discoveries tomorrow.

33227

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

Joshua Weitz @joshuasweitz.bsky.social · 05/06/2026

Many ways to raise your voice & the time is now, made easier & systematic by @standupforscience.net: fight2win.standupforscience.net?_gl=1*13p5tf....

Headline action page from https://www.standupforscience.net/

On May 29, the Office of Management and Budget posted a sweeping regulatory change that will end American science as we know it.
Take Action NOW!
It’s time to fight back! Head to the SUFS Action Center to:
Learn how to write public comments

Submit YOUR public comment

Contact your Members of Congress

Learn how to talk about this new proposed rule and why it matters

067

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

Joshua Weitz @joshuasweitz.bsky.social · 05/06/2026

You can join them and express your view on the proposed OMB regulations that would mean: * Political interference in funding decisions * Grants could be cancelled at any time & for any reason * Restrictions on collaborations and publications * Litmus tests for individuals/institutions.

1117

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

Joshua Weitz @joshuasweitz.bsky.social · 05/06/2026

Many thanks to Amanda Finn, @bdavisbio.bsky.social, @brandonleon95.bsky.social, Cael Dant, @jolybdenum.bsky.social, @hannahkubinski.bsky.social, @kassstem.com, Mikayla Smith-Craven, Miles Arnett, and @sneharao.bsky.social for speaking up.

Joshua Weitz @joshuasweitz.bsky.social · 05/06/2026

Reposted by Jordan Williams (she/her)

Written by early career scientists from @snapcoalition.org who understand precisely what is at stake if politicians decide what and who gets funded. If this group of MS & PhD candidates (and a few recent PhD grads) can speak up publicly... then so can *you*. sciencepolitics.org/2026/06/05/w...