iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by Megan Wallace

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 Megan Wallace

Erik Postma @erikpostma.bsky.social · 22/08/2025

With #eseb2025 coming to a close, it is time to start making plans for 2026. Interested in the interface of evolution 🧬 and ecology 🌳? Come to our #ExE conference hosted by @uniexecec.bsky.social in beautiful #Cornwall. Leave your email address at tinyurl.com/EvolxEcol to join our mailing list!

112176

Reposted by Megan Wallace

Trends in Ecology & Evolution @cp-trendsecolevo.bsky.social · 17/04/2025

Recently, there’s been a lot of discussion about diversity in science. However, disability/chronic conditions has been absent. In response, Trends in Ecology & Evolution is publishing a series of interviews with ecologists and evolutionary biologists who are disabled or have a chronic condition.

39042

Reposted by Megan Wallace

Darren Obbard @darrenobbard.bsky.social · 16/04/2025

I know you like #Drosophila and I know you like #Genomes - but do you also like #Genes? Coding DNA annotation of 304 species of Drosophilidae! www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...

biorxiv.org

Comparative gene annotation of 304 species of Drosophilidae

13514

Reposted by Megan Wallace

Long Covid UK @longcoviduk.bsky.social · 17/03/2025

🚨1/11. NEW: #LongCovid services are failing patients!! A joint report from us at Long Covid Support & @longcovidkids.bsky.social reveals: 🔴 There are clinics closing 🔴 Care is inconsistent & often falling short of NHS commissioning guidelines More & link below!! ⬇️ #ClosingClinics

13015

Megan Wallace @meganawallace.bsky.social · 14/01/2025

This video sums up so much of the unseen experience of long Covid, and the frustration of what’s not being done to help at the government level. Really worth watching.

060

Reposted by Megan Wallace

Michelle Wille @duckswabber.bsky.social · 02/12/2024

Surveillance is hard, laborious, expensive. Even more so in the Antarctic. With @eakarlsson.bsky.social we highlight how to enhance our understanding of HPAI using innovative surveillance approaches. 👉https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534724002787#f0010

0177

Reposted by Megan Wallace

Ben Longdon @blongdon.bsky.social · 14/10/2024

New from Ryan Imrie + Megan Wallace: 11 viruses x 35 host species, phylogenetic signal in susceptibility, +'ve correlations in susceptibility between divergent viruses but no evidence for -'ve corr's (ie resistance to one virus doesn't inc susceptibility to another) doi.org/10.1101/2024...

Figure with susceptibility across 35 hosts to 11 viruses

Figure with correlations across 35 hosts to 11 viruses - correlations either positive or not different from zero

175

Reposted by Megan Wallace

Ben Longdon @blongdon.bsky.social · 23/09/2024

New review as EcoEvoRxiv preprint with fab team of Megan Wallace @duckswabber.bsky.social @jemmageoghegan.bsky.social @ryanimrie @eddieholmes.bsky.social @xavh.bsky.social "Making sense of the virome in light of evolution and ecology" -> doi.org/10.32942/X21... @exetercec.bsky.social

Illustration of the virome with potential biotic and abiotic drivers (evolutionary factors, host range overlap, temperature/rainfall/UVm seasonal variation, life history traits, diet, movement ecology, coinfection and anthropogenic change)

067