Sign in

Ludo Waltman

@ludowaltman.bsky.social
1.2K followers 397 following 344 posts

Scientific Director Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University; Open Science Ambassador Leiden University; Co-chair Research on Research Institute (RoRI); President ASAPbio; Editor-in-Chief MetaROR (MetaResearch Open Review)

PostsRepliesMedia
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Richard Sever @richardsever.bsky.social · 03/10/2026
As AI increases both productivity & ease of creating slop, there's a big challenge for those of us disseminating science. This from @pracheeac.bsky.social is an essential read. [disclaimer: she & I've spent 10+ years a̶r̶g̶u̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ discussing this stuff] 1/n pracheeac.substack.com/p/arxiv-is-k...
pracheeac.substack.com
arXiv Is Killing Itself So AI Doesn't Have To
Disclosure: I ranted to Claude with a bunch of my grievances and ideas, and had it organize them into this blog post.
113313
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Bianca Kramer @msphelps.bsky.social · 02/10/2026
Very pleased with this milestone - 150+ signatory organizations have signed the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information!
064
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information @barcelonadori.bsky.social · 02/10/2026
🌍 150+ signatories, and counting! The Barcelona Declaration now brings together 150+ signatory organizations across 37 countries. New signatories come from Brazil, El Salvador, Georgia & Spain. Together, we’re making open research information the norm. barcelona-declaration.org/signatories/
Cream, yellow, and purple graphic announcing “150+ signatories, and counting.” It states that the Barcelona Declaration community includes more than 150 signatory organizations across 37 countries, with the newest signatories coming from El Salvador, Spain, Brazil, and Georgia. A large globe illustration appears alongside the text, with the Barcelona Declaration logo above and the greetings “¡Hola!”, “Oi!”, and “გამარჯობა!” beside a waving-hand icon below.
052
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
MetaROR @metaror.bsky.social · 08/09/2026
This new MetaROR-evaluated paper introduces "the innovation annulus: the zone between freely available structured data and the advancing frontier of commercially refined knowledge products," which is "a permanent, functional feature of the ecosystem -- not a pathology to eliminate." 👇 Read now
metaror.org
Market dynamics, governance and open research metadata in the AI era - MetaROR
112
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
MetaROR @metaror.bsky.social · 22/09/2026
This new study takes a meta-perspective on reproducibility by examining replication projects themselves. The reviewers agree the manuscript addresses an important and worthwhile question but identify fundamental problems that currently prevent confidence in the study results. 👉 Read now on MetaROR
metaror.org
A meta-perspective on reproducibility and replication rates - MetaROR
132
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
MetaROR @metaror.bsky.social · 01/10/2026
How sustainable are the databases that life sciences researchers depend on? This new study examined 9 of them to find out. Both reviewers find the study timely and valuable. One reviewer suggests another level of synthesis in the thematic analysis would be helpful. 👉 Read now on MetaROR
metaror.org
Sustainability during instability: Long-lived life science databases and science funding outlook in the United States - MetaROR
133
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
MetaROR @metaror.bsky.social · 30/09/2026
This article by Yu Zhu and Jiyuan Ye presents a theoretical framework for research evaluation developed in China, highlighting the current binary opposition between qualitative & quantitative methods in evaluation practices. 👉 Read the assessment, reviews, author response & full article on MetaROR
metaror.org
Beyond the binary: The system of all-round evaluation of research and its practices in China - MetaROR
112
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) Alliance @prcalliance.bsky.social · 26/09/2026
"PRC makes the full process of scientific dispute visible: instead of concealing deliberation behind editorial decisions, it exposes disagreement, revision, and assessment as integral parts of scientific discovery."
032
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
ASAPbio @asapbio.bsky.social · 24/09/2026
Research assessment and scholarly publishing are two sides of the same coin, and achieving meaningful progress in both requires coordination between the reform movements. 🧵
135
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) Alliance @prcalliance.bsky.social · 23/09/2026
✨Keynote talk by @ludowaltman.bsky.social, Scientific Director, CWTS at Leiden University, ✨Contributions from PRC implementers representing the platforms and services that make PRC a reality ✨A researcher panel discussion about their experiences publishing using the PRC model
021
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Andrea Chiarelli @drachiarelli.bsky.social · 22/09/2026
Great to see @ludowaltman.bsky.social discuss the report that we collaborated on a couple of years ago! Read it here: doi.org/10.5281/zeno...
011
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Dan Quintana @dsquintana.bsky.social · 19/09/2026
New preprint! 🎉 I analysed 1660 papers from 4 psychology journals and found materials sharing went from 9% of papers in 2015 to 82% in 2025, and these materials *do* get downloaded — a median of 135 times each. BUT shared code is often hard to run. doi.org/10.31234/osf... Let's walk through it 🧵
Two-panel figure. Panel a is a flow diagram tracking 1,611 empirical psychology articles from publication year (545 in 2015, 552 in 2020, 514 in 2025) to repository-link type: 785 link an OSF project, 85 link another platform, and 741 link no repository. Of those with an OSF link, download counts were retrieved for 670 and not retrieved for 115. Panel b is a line chart of the share of empirical papers linking OSF across 2015, 2020 and 2025. The overall rate, shown as a dashed black line, rises from 9% to 57% to 82%. All four journals rise steeply and end close together: Psychological Science 92%, JESP 89%, JML 83%, Cognition 76%, with Psychological Science highest throughout.Three-panel figure. Panel a: ridgeline plot of downloads per file by material type on a log scale, with the percentage never downloaded labelled for each — archive 16% of 545 files, documents 20% of 2,970, code 12% of 3,471, other 17% of 1,646, data 21% of 10,051, media 35% of 2,120, images 35% of 4,102. Most files cluster between 1 and 10 downloads, with long right tails past 100. Panel b: ridgeline plot of downloads per paper by journal, log scale, with dashed median lines; Psychological Science is highest, then JESP, JML and Cognition. Panel c: stacked bars showing, for documents, data and code separately, the share of papers by download band (0, 1–10, 11–100, more than 100) in 2015, 2020 and 2025. The share exceeding 100 downloads falls sharply over time in all three types, from roughly two-thirds in 2015 to a quarter or less in 2025, as the 1–10 band grows.Four-panel figure. Panel a: statistical languages detected among 333 papers with retrievable code — R 88%, SPSS 12%, Stata 4%, SAS 1%. Panel b: code red flags among those 333 papers — 34% hard-code an absolute path, 40% reference a missing file — above documentation among 672 OSF-linked papers — 21% have a README, 30% are documented by README, description or wiki. Panel c: among 562 Elsevier papers with no repository link, 44% (245) host at least one journal supplementary file but only 14% (77) host data, code or an archive. Panel d: composition of those 448 hosted files — documents 52%, data 21%, media 9%, other 7%, archive 6%, code 3%, images 1%. The code panels are green, the journal-supplement panels blue.Coefficient plot (download predictors)

Dot-and-whisker plot of three standardised predictors of OSF download volume, each with a 95% confidence interval. Repository size (number of files) has the largest effect at about 0.76, citations about 0.38, and altmetric attention about 0.12. All three intervals sit entirely above zero, so each predicts more downloads, with repository size roughly twice the effect of citations and six times that of attention. X-axis: standardised effect, −0.2 to 1.0.
4265113
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Juan Pablo Alperin @juancommander.scholcommlab.ca · 16/09/2026
TWO new BLOGS on the the messy landscape of preprints. First, mapping out preprint servers and services seems easy... but it's not! What counts as a #preprint server? read our take w/ @mariomalicki.bsky.social and @nataschachtena.bsky.social www.scholcommlab.ca/2026/09/01/d...
scholcommlab.ca
Defining Preprints and Preprint Servers: Mapping an Inconsistent Landscape
A term without a settled definition The term “preprint” is widely used in scholarly communication, but it does not have an agreed-upon definition across disciplines, platforms, or professional role…
164
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Jeroen Bosman @jeroenbosman.bsky.social · 17/09/2026
On 20260917 @utrechtuniversity.bsky.social Utrecht University published its new Open Access policy 2026-2030: doi.org/10.5281/zeno.... It widens and deepens the scope, with all publication types in scope and addressing topics like knowledge equity and governance & ownership.
Screenshot from cover of the new Utrecht University Open Access Policy 2026-2030, with the university logo, the title and an orange open access icon on top of an arrow pointing from 2026 to 2030.
154
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
OpenAIRE @openaire.bsky.social · 15/09/2026
What does digital sovereignty look like in research? In the Netherlands, it starts with metadata. 🇳🇱 DURF, BROCCOLI and PID-to-Portal are making Dutch research information more open and trustworthy. How OpenAIRE is contributing 👇 www.openaire.eu/openaire-and...
001
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
DORA @dorassessment.bsky.social · 14/09/2026
Our new paper, with @asapbio.bsky.social, @cwts.nl and @sciencecouncil.bsky.social, argues for coordinated action across assessment and publishing reform 👉 bit.ly/RRA-publishing The conversation continues at our @oaspa.bsky.social side event, helping shape the upcoming Practical Guide for Schol Comm
bit.ly
From interdependent movements to shared action: Connecting publishing and assessment reforms
Research assessment and scholarly publishing play interconnected roles in shaping research culture, incentives, and norms that ultimately determine what knowledge is produced, communicated, trusted, a...
066
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
PLOS Biology @plosbiology.org · 11/09/2026
Modern #ScientificPublishing often incentivizes overstating results at the expense of ensuring rigor. @maxkrummel.bsky.social &co test #DiscoveryStack, which seeks to realign #PeerReview with its core purpose by separating the assessment of quality & impact @plosbiology.org 🧪 buff.ly/1GRnb4b
Top: The Discovery Stack model includes three sequential phases: 1) Quality Review, 2) Author Response, and 3) Impact Review. Bottom left: Eighteen manuscripts were reviewed in the pilot. Manuscripts are grouped according to recruitment source and author participation, with the number of completed Quality and Impact reviews for each manuscript depicted. Bottom right: Number of Quality and Impact reviews completed per manuscript.
01310
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Alex Rushforth @alexrushforth.bsky.social · 09/09/2026
Great presentation by my @cwts.nl colleague Nino Gogadze at #STIENID2026 on @coarassessment.bsky.social research assessment reform in three Eastern European countries.
023
Ludo Waltman @ludowaltman.bsky.social · 13/09/2026
Last year CWTS, ASAPbio, DORA and the International Science Council organized a workshop in Pisa to discuss coordination of research assessment reform and scholarly publishing reform. The workshop participants have now published a paper outlining their vision on how to realize this coordination.
146
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
DORA @dorassessment.bsky.social · 02/09/2026
💬 A busy September ahead for research assessment & scholarly publishing reforms! Join the conversation: CoARA Conference (8 Sept), STI Session (11 Sept), OECD Blue Sky (14 Sept) & OASPA Fishbowl (22 Sept). Let's connect the reform movements! @asapbio.bsky.social @sciencecouncil.bsky.social @cwts.nl
Diagram showing how publishing reform (left) and research assessment reform (right) converge around shared challenges (center). The shared challenges are listed as: “Advance markers showing trust and transparency beyond brands and prestige, surface and recognize research outputs beyond articles, identify globally relevant researcher assessment components.” CC-BY licensed image from Waltman, Lima et al. (2026). Available from Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22133868
In partnership with International Science Council, CWTS | Leiden University & ASAPbio. You can read more about our current action groups summarized in the image below (upcoming paper) on our initiative website https://asapbio.org/focus-areas/recognitions-rewards/pisa-action-groups/ .
045
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Katie Corker @katiecorker.bsky.social · 09/09/2026
Looking forward to the public launch of the PRC Alliance - hope you can join us!
063
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
PREreview @prereview.bsky.social · 09/09/2026
Join us for the “Publish, Review, Curate (PRC): Shaping the future of scholarly publishing” launch event on October 28, 2026 at 14:00 UTC! #OpenPeerReview #Preprints
043
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Research on Research Institute (RoRI) @rorinstitute.bsky.social · 10/09/2026
Delighted to welcome a delegation from South Korea’s R&I system to RoRI this week for an engaging discussion on funding allocation and the RoRI model 🇰🇷
002
Ludo Waltman @ludowaltman.bsky.social · 09/09/2026
The evaluation of this article by @dwh.bsky.social truly shows the added value of MetaROR's publish-review-curate model. Exciting to see this! There are important disagreements between the author and the reviewers. For me as a reader, it is extremely valuable to learn from these disagreements.
112
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information @barcelonadori.bsky.social · 09/09/2026
🇧🇪 The Barcelona Declaration is at #STIENID2026! This year’s conference, “Indicators for a Responsible Research Future,” brings the STI community together at the University of Antwerp. Members of our community are contributing to two sessions. 🧵
Purple promotional graphic for the STI-ENID Conference 2026, “Indicators for a Responsible Research Future.” It highlights two sessions: “China Basic Research Development Report,” a plenary on Tuesday 8 September from 16:00 to 17:30 CEST, and “Criteria for open research information sources,” on Thursday 10 September from 15:45 to 17:15 CEST. The Barcelona Declaration and STI-ENID 2026 logos appear alongside an outline map of Belgium with Antwerp marked and the message “Join us in Antwerp!”
112
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information @barcelonadori.bsky.social · 09/09/2026
🔹 Panel discussion China Basic Research Development Report, with @ludowaltman.bsky.social Session details: virtual.oxfordabstracts.com/event/76329/...
virtual.oxfordabstracts.com
OA Virtual conferences
111
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
MetaROR @metaror.bsky.social · 01/09/2026
After two rounds of MetaROR evaluation, this article was just published in Scientometrics! 👏 Congratulations to the authors and everyone else involved.
link.springer.com
Modeling the global citation network using the scalable agent-based simulator for citation analysis with recency-emphasized sampling (SASCA-ReS) - Scientometrics
The global science literature, represented as a network with articles as nodes and citations as edges, is a rich artifact for scientometric studies. The structure of this network depends on its count ...
011
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
MetaROR @metaror.bsky.social · 07/09/2026
Here is the evaluation for "an empirical assessment of the inferential reproducibility of linear regression analyses in health and biomedical research". It demonstrates "substantial violations of key modelling assumptions" that often went unnoticed by authors and reviewers. 👇 Read it on MetaROR
metaror.org
An empirical assessment of inferential reproducibility of linear regression in health and biomedical research papers - MetaROR
112
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Richard Sever @richardsever.bsky.social · 03/09/2026
You can now update bioRxiv/medRxiv preprints with funding information after the fact. Authors often omit/don't have all funding info when submitting, but funders understandably want it there. This solves the problem without requiring you to submit a whole new paper. openrxiv.org/updating-fun...
openrxiv.org
Updating funder information on preprints - openRxiv
For the past year, bioRxiv and medRxiv authors have been able to include funder information with their preprints. This can be entered in a dedicated field during the submission process, using Research...
06428
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
bioRxiv & medRxiv @biorxiv-medrxiv.bsky.social · 04/09/2026
📣 New bioRxiv & medRxiv feature! Authors can now add funder information to preprints they have already posted on bioRxiv and medRxiv without creating a new version of the article from their Author Area. Read more here: connect.biorxiv.org/news/2026/09... connect.medrxiv.org/news/2026/09...
connect.biorxiv.org
Updating funder information on preprints
bioRxiv - the preprint server for biology, operated by openRxiv, a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing scientific communication
033
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
MetaROR @metaror.bsky.social · 02/09/2026
2️⃣ Here is a revision of one of our first articles - a large-scale data-driven analysis of the use of initials vs. full first names in the author lists of scientific publications. Reviewers were satisfied with the revisions made, though two of them still raised a few minor issues. 👇 Read it now
metaror.org
The rise and fall of the initial era - MetaROR
101
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Research on Research Institute (RoRI) @rorinstitute.bsky.social · 01/09/2026
Is science losing its disruptive edge, or is the metric flawed? @scurry.bsky.social and @ludowaltman.bsky.social look at the debate over measuring scientific disruption and make the case for fully open metadata and modern peer engagement: researchonresearchinstitute.substack.com/p/disruption...
researchonresearchinstitute.substack.com
Disruption eruption
Dispute about the validity of a metric for scientific innovation highlights the need for open research approaches in metascience
164
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Stephen Curry @scurry.bsky.social · 01/09/2026
NEW on the @rorinstitute.bsky.social Substack: @ludowaltman.bsky.social & I discuss the need for more open metascience practices in the light of an ongoing dispute over what the consolidation-disruption index tells us about innovation trends. researchonresearchinstitute.substack.com/p/disruption...
researchonresearchinstitute.substack.com
Disruption eruption
Dispute about the validity of a metric for scientific innovation highlights the need for open research approaches in metascience
164
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Open Science NL @opensciencenl.bsky.social · 01/09/2026
Reminder: deadline approaching to nominate for the Open Science NL advisory panels! Open Science NL is looking for people with knowledge of the open science field to discuss the transition to open science. The deadline for nominations: 11 Sept. 2026, 17:00:00 CET. www.openscience.nl/en/news/shar...
011
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Leiden Madtrics @leidenmadtrics.bsky.social · 31/08/2026
🤝 How can we foster a collaborative, fair & healthy research culture that best enables researchers & research communities in their work? That question is at the heart of the new 2026–2028 strategy for our Culture&Evaluation focal area, as explained in our latest post. 👇 Read now on Leiden Madtrics
leidenmadtrics.nl
Strengthening research cultures
How can we foster a collaborative, fair, and healthy research culture that enables researchers and research communities to do their best work? This question lies at the heart of the new strategy of th...
013
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) Alliance @prcalliance.bsky.social · 28/08/2026
Have you heard the term ‘PRC ’ but do not know what it means? 🤔 Don’t worry, we are here to break it down for you! PRC stands for Publish-Review-Curate, a model that re-imagines scholarly publishing. publish-review-curate.org/what-is-publ... How does it work? 👇
publish-review-curate.org
What is PRC?
The Publish, Review, Curate (PRC) model re-imagines scholarly publishing by breaking the traditional publishing process into three distinct, independently executable stages: publish, review, and cu…
122
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information @barcelonadori.bsky.social · 25/08/2026
⏰ 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐦𝐢𝐭! Share how policy shapes implementation and practice informs policy. 📝 𝐃𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞: 𝟏 𝐒𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 📅 2026 Conference: 24–25 November 📍 Berlin and online Co-organised by @leibniz-gemeinschaft.de @helmholtzosoffice.bsky.social 🔗 barcelona-declaration.org/conference_2...
Promotional graphic for the 2026 Conference of the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information. A diagram shows policy and practice informing each other, alongside a prominent “One week left” reminder for the Call for Proposals. The conference takes place on 24–25 November 2026 in Berlin and online. The submission deadline is 1 September. A QR code links to the proposal form. The graphic includes a photograph of Berlin and the logos of the Barcelona Declaration, Leibniz Association, and Helmholtz Open Science.
023
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information @barcelonadori.bsky.social · 27/08/2026
🎓 Welcome, Stanford University Libraries! Their signature of the Barcelona Declaration brings valuable open metadata expertise to our community and strengthens the growing participation of US institutions. ✨ We’re very happy to welcome them! 🔗 Read more: barcelona-declaration.org/news/2026082...
Graphic welcoming Stanford University Libraries to the Barcelona Declaration community. A handshake illustration appears below the welcome message, with the logos of the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information and Stanford University Libraries displayed side by side at the bottom on a light cream background
023
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Richard Sever @richardsever.bsky.social · 27/08/2026
$3.7 billion spent on APCs in 2025. That's ~1000X more than it costs to run bioRxiv/medRxiv. Worth thinking about as we consider how to fund infrastructure... arxiv.org/pdf/2608.16322
arxiv.org
813379
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
MetaROR @metaror.bsky.social · 27/08/2026
2️⃣ The revision of this one is now up! Both reviewers are highly satisfied with the (substantial) changes made to the article, and have no further comments. 🙏 Thanks and congratulations to all involved. 👇 Read both versions, including reviews and assessments, here metaror.org/article/rest...
metaror.org
Restructuring scientific papers for human and AI readers - MetaROR
023
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Ashley Farley @openaccessmaven.bsky.social · 25/08/2026
Excited to see momentum building around the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model and to be part of the work behind the emerging PRC Alliance. 🚀 If you're interested in more open, flexible, and community-driven approaches to scholarly publishing, follow along!
133
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
MetaROR @metaror.bsky.social · 25/08/2026
[1 / 3] 🔀 This study by @eumsoohong.bsky.social examines the interoperability between the South Korean national funder database and two bibliographic databases (Web of Science & OpenAlex). 👇 Read the full evaluation now on MetaROR
metaror.org
Assessing funders’ databases against bibliographic sources: A study of interoperability, metadata quality, and coverage using South Korea’s national R&D database - MetaROR
113
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
MetaROR @metaror.bsky.social · 18/08/2026
♻️ How to detect reuse of data at scale? This article studies reuse of data sets shared by researchers from a biomedical research institution. 📝 The 3 reviewers are generally positive, calling the work 'thorough' & 'exciting' while providing detailed suggestions to improve it. 👇 Read now on MetaROR
metaror.org
Matching data references and institutional output to map the reuse of biomedical research data - MetaROR
101
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) Alliance @prcalliance.bsky.social · 24/08/2026
Have you heard of the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model of scholarly publishing? PRC reimagines scholarly publishing by breaking the traditional publishing process into independently executable stages: ✨publish, ✨review, and ✨curate.
1119
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Dermot Lynott @dermotlynott.bsky.social · 07/08/2026
Just want to give a big shoutout to the PsyArXiv team of volunteers, moderators, and committee members, who do tireless work to keep the show on the road all year round! @improvingpsych.org
14415
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
jp flores (he/him) @jpflores.rbind.io · 19/08/2026
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.
163
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
PREreview @prereview.bsky.social · 19/08/2026
Community support for more rapid & transparent scholarly communication models is growing. But as @jpflores.rbind.io argues, research assessment needs to recognize and reward this shift. The PRC Alliance aims to raise the visibility and status of this model. Learn more & join: bit.ly/3U467YV
bit.ly
Join the Alliance
Membership in the Alliance is open to organisations and initiatives working together to share knowledge and accelerate the adoption of the Publish, Review, Curate (PRC) model of scholarly publishin…
033
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Juan Pablo Alperin @juancommander.scholcommlab.ca · 14/08/2026
1/ NEW Preprint on an important question for the #DiamondOA community: Who Owns, Publishes, and Governs Diamond Open Access? based on a survey of journals using OJS. osf.io/preprints/me... cc. @nataschachtena.bsky.social @mikaellaakso.bsky.social
osf.io
OSF
3128
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
Open Research Funders Group @orfg.bsky.social · 17/08/2026
🎉 ORFG is pleased to welcome The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research as its newest member! We're excited to have the foundation as an open science leader and collaborator in our community. www.orfg.org/news/2026/3/...
orfg.org
Michael J. Fox Foundation Joins ORFG — Open Research Funders Group
The Open Research Funders Group (ORFG) is pleased to welcome The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research (MJFF) as its newest contributing member.
074
Reposted by Ludo Waltman
vincentholst.bsky.social @vincentholst.bsky.social · 13/08/2026
In 2023, @nature.com published 'Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time', receiving world-wide media attention. Our Matters Arising, published after a 32 month delay (more on that soon), shows that the reported decline can largely be attributed to dataset artefacts. 🧵
The average CD_5 index per year for Web of Science. The original Park et al. decline (top curve) becomes essentially flat (bottom curve) when removing papers with CD_5=1. Those papers largely correspond to dataset artefacts.
9352173