Sign in

Nicolas Clairis

@nclairis.bsky.social
275 followers 484 following 127 posts

Postdoc passionate about effort-based decision-making and the roots of effort aversiveness. If you are on Mastodon, my profile is: @nicolasclairis@fediscience.org

PostsRepliesMedia
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 31/08/2026
They could at least thank all the researchers that made it possible by paying to publish their best papers, by reviewing for free despite all the major cuts in scientific research in most countries worldwide
100
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Ole Goltermann @olegolt.bsky.social · 20/05/2026
A recent paper by Epp et al. in NN claimed that ~40% of reported BOLD findings could be misinterpreted. In our reanalysis, we identified several statistical issues that, in our view, undermine these conclusions. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6... 👇 1/11
biorxiv.org
14626
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 29/05/2026
Based on a suggestion from @gsescousse.bsky.social, we wanted to use our WhereToPublish database to check the relationship between article processing charges (APCs) and the "prestige" of the journal. 1/7
wheretopublish.github.io
Where to Publish?
131
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 06/05/2026
In times when people talk more and more about sovereignty, I was curious to use our WhereToPublish database to explore in which country most journals are based based on their publisher.
wheretopublish.github.io
Where to Publish?
120
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 27/04/2026
While @phylogenetrips.bsky.social and I were presenting the Where To Publish database (wheretopublish.github.io) in french to the CRNL in Lyon, @diegoharta.bsky.social was presenting the Where To Publish database in Spanish to the UNAM in Mexico! Where To Publish recording starting at 38:30
youtube.com
Ecología y Evolución del Pez Payaso. Genómica y simulaciones
YouTube video by Instituto de Ecología, UNAM
141
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 25/04/2026
Yesterday, we were invited to present Where To Publish to the CRNL in Lyon. The presentation (in french) can be found below. Thanks again to the Scientific Integrity Working Group in Lyon for the invitation. Things are moving! #openAccess #scientificPublicationSystem #publishOrPerish #AcademicSky
pod.inserm.fr
GRT Intégrité scientifique - Where_to_publish
Le Groupe de Travail Intégrité Scientifique a invité les auteurs de la base de données Where to Publish le Vendredi 24 avril 2026. Where to Publish est une base de données innovante qui recense les re...
222
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 13/04/2026
Based on much evidence that many publishers use the pressure to publish open access (OA) as a means to increase the article processing charges (APCs) I wanted to verify the assumption that for-profit OA journals are more expensive than for-profit non-OA journals in our where to publish database
blogs.lse.ac.uk
Adoption of open access is rising – but so too are its costs - LSE Impact
Options available to authors to make their work open access are on the rise. Adoption of open access itself is also rising, and usage of open-access materials is similarly increasing. However, alongsi...
110
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 25/03/2026
😢 the "Choose Europe" is a big joke in front of such cuts #chooseEurope
050
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Daniel Heck @danielheck.bsky.social · 24/03/2026
I always had the vague feeling that Scientific Reports and Nature Communications are mainly APC business models. A paper estimated the total APC for gold/hybrid Open Access per journal 2015–2018: doi.org/10.1162/qss_... Surprise, surprise - there are 2 outliers at the top😐
510451
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 20/03/2026
000
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 19/03/2026
"High-profile, high-fee journals affected include Nature Communications, Cell Reports, and Science Advances." Things are accelerating a bit as it seems when one of the only countries who raised its science budget decides to changes the journals it accepts to fund... #AcademicSky
science.org
Major Chinese funder to stop paying fees for 30 pricey open-access journals
Move comes amid effort to grow the country’s own journals
052
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Paolo Crosetto @paolocrosetto.bsky.social · 19/03/2026
🚨Today 4pm CET🚨 PCI Webinar: The Drain of Scientific Publishing: why publishing is becoming a burden for science and how to fix it An overview talk based on three papers on #ScientificPublishing, where it stands & how to fix it. Plus dad jokes and bad acronyms. peercommunityin.org/pci-webinar-...
1117
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 12/03/2026
sad for US but " Abrahams hopes to host the ceremony in a different European city every other year." 😍
000
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Paolo Crosetto @paolocrosetto.bsky.social · 11/03/2026
the-strain-on-scientific-publishing.github.io/website/post...
the-strain-on-scientific-publishing.github.io
Springer Nature Discovers MDPI – The Strain on Scientific Publishing
Home page for the paper ‘The Strain on Scientific Publishing’ by Mark A Hanson, Dan Brockington, Paolo Crosetto and Pablo Gomez Barreiro
022
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 09/03/2026
Based on our WhereToPublish database, we were curious to see if the APCs depend on the publisher type and with relatively no surprise at all, the journals that are for-profit are way above: For-profit journals = 2635 +/- 37€ (mean +/- sem) Non-profit & University Press journals = 1996 +/- 63€ 1/4
275
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 18/02/2026
Unsurprising, but still sad that it didn't work out www.reuters.com/legal/govern...
reuters.com
Academic publishers defeat lawsuit over ‘peer review’ pay, other restrictions
A group of major academic publishers convinced a judge in New York to dismiss a lawsuit accusing them of thwarting competition by barring scholars from submitting papers to multiple journals simultane...
000
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Sam Gershman @gershbrain.bsky.social · 10/02/2026
If you work at the intersection of computational neuroscience and machine learning, consider applying for this postdoc position (January 2027 start date): academicpositions.harvard.edu/postings/15868 An opportunity to work with a great group of people across Harvard, MIT, and UC Berkeley.
37551
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 10/02/2026
Dear all, I'm happy to present you a side project done with @diegoharta.bsky.social @phylogenetrips.bsky.social & Lucas Baudouin regarding the publication landscape in Biology: wheretopublish.github.io 1/4
wheretopublish.github.io
Where to Publish?
2167
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 09/02/2026
Happy World Greek Language Day! Καλή μέρα σε όλους! www.unesco.org/en/articles/... #greek #greekLanguageDay
unesco.org
World Greek Language Day
Following the decision adopted at the recent UNESCO General Conference concerning the Greek language and its contribution to universal culture, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
000
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 29/01/2026
Just learned about this study looking at methodological trends in psych and econ over time: online.ucpress.edu/collabra/art.... Matches my perception well: Nobody in psych bothers to (explicitly) try causal inference unless they conducted an experiment, not a lot of theoretical work either.
Figure 1 from the paper.
Econ: from 2008 to 2024, methods aiming for causal inference have increased, theoretical work has decreased. 
Psych: Mostly experimental or descriptive correlational work.
86817
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Nico Rascovan @nrascovan.bsky.social · 27/01/2026
Institut Pasteur (@pasteur.fr) is recruiting new young PIs to open new groups in the Institute. Deadline is February 9th! Don't miss the opportunity!
03648
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Stefano Palminteri @stepalminteri.bsky.social · 27/01/2026
🧵 New paper in @NatureComms Feedback-induced attitudinal changes in risk preferences Nasioulas, Potier, Cerrotti, Lebreton & me (2026) Does feedback really improve risky decision-making? Short answer: no! it changes attitudes, not learning. 👇 rdcu.be/e0VcO
rdcu.be
Feedback-induced attitudinal changes in risk preferences
Nature Communications - Normative theory predicts that feedback should not affect decisions under risk, but past findings disagree. Here, the authors show that feedback shifts risk-taking by...
24214
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Pierre Le Merre @pierrelemerre.bsky.social · 20/01/2026
Main postdoc study out! We can redefine prefrontal cortex regions with single-unit activity! Grateful to @carlenlab.bsky.social and @weltgeischt.bsky.social who made this crazy project real. Thanks to all co-authors, collaborators, and reviewers. www.nature.com/articles/s41...
nature.com
A prefrontal cortex map based on single-neuron activity - Nature Neuroscience
The authors mapped spontaneous and choice activity across mouse prefrontal cortex. The activity maps aligned with intrinsic connectivity rather than anatomical subregions, suggesting that connectivity...
59721
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Margot Finn @eicathomefinn.bsky.social · 22/01/2026
Kent, Essex and apparently Sussex all decline to be gouged by Elsevier Read & Publish deals. Others may well follow. 1/2
timeshighereducation.com
Three major research universities opt out of new Elsevier deal
Complaints over ‘price increases’ and open access models spur UK institutions to walk away from offer from publishing giant, despite nationally negotiated agreement
313442
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Jérémie Naudé @jeremie-n.cpesr.fr · 17/01/2026
Oui, When Prophecy Fails, l'étude fondatrice de la théorie de la dissonance cognitive repose sur des faits fabriqués : onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/.... Une "dissonance cognitive" auquelle beaucoup restent accrochés, dont G. Bronner, malgré les critiques connues du concept (et c'est meta 💀)
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Debunking “When Prophecy Fails”
In 1954, Dorothy Martin predicted an apocalyptic flood and promised her followers rescue by flying saucers. When neither arrived, she recanted, her group dissolved, and efforts to proselytize ceased....
310864
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 26/12/2025
I hope this one gets an #IgNobel would be well deserved
000
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Carl T. Bergstrom @carlbergstrom.com · 16/12/2025
Just decline the peer review invitation. What are you people even doing?
nature.com
More than half of researchers now use AI for peer review — often against guidance
A survey of 1,600 academics found that more than 50% have used artificial-intelligence tools while peer reviewing manuscripts.
35651195
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 15/12/2025
Another AI-fabricated book from Top Quality academic publisher Spring Nature.
thetimes.com
Publisher under fire after ‘fake’ citations found in AI ethics guide
A book published by Springer Nature includes dozens of questionable citations, including references to journals that do not exist
3176
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 11/12/2025
fediscience.org/@ungarage@ma...
000
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
PHD Comics @phdcomics.com · 05/12/2025
Publication charges
123752
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
CNRS @cnrs.fr · 04/12/2025
#Communiqué 🗞️ L'@academiesciences.bsky.social et le CNRS signent un accord de coédition pour développer un modèle de publication scientifique en libre accès et gratuit. ✍️ 👉 www.cnrs.fr/fr/presse/la...
16329
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 04/12/2025
Proton 💙
000
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 04/12/2025
"This decision by the CNRS will help the organisation save €1.4 million annually in subscription fees, funds that will be redirected towards initiatives promoting open science, particularly the development of open databases." YES! #scientificPublishing
041
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Paolo Crosetto @paolocrosetto.bsky.social · 30/11/2025
Since AI slop is again all over Scientific Reports, a thread on the economics of grey-zone publishing. Why does slop keep getting published? What does it mean for science? How can we stop this? Background readings: Understand the strain: tinyurl.com/2b6wxx5r Stop the drain: tinyurl.com/3jfscscy
An obviously AI-generated figure with AI slop and fake text all over it, recently published in Scientific Reports.
411172
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Sarah Garfinkel @sarahgarf.bsky.social · 24/11/2025
** Recruiting a postdoc ** We are looking for a postdoc to work on emotion, mental health, and interoception, based in London at @ucl.ac.uk in my lab (Clinical and Affective Neuroscience). Part of a large Wellcome Grant (co-led with the brilliant @camillanord.bsky.social)
18586
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Ross Otto @arossotto.bsky.social · 19/11/2025
New pontification piece with @awestbrook.bsky.social and Jean Daunizeau, just out in TICS: Why is cognitive effort experienced as costly? (or why does it hurt to think) never written a review paper before in my life, that was a new and unusual experience
cell.com
Why is cognitive effort experienced as costly?
A widespread observation is that people avoid mentally effortful courses of action, and much recent work examining cognitive effort has explained subjective effort evaluation – and, consequently, pref...
18122
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 19/11/2025
"commercial publishing is becoming increasingly detached from the needs and interests of researchers and now serve profits, not science"
020
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 18/11/2025
Anyone understands why such a big part of internet depends on one single US-based company? That sounds like a terrible security flaw on so many levels (sovereignity, vulnerability, etc.)
000
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Danny Kingsley @dannykay68.bsky.social · 15/11/2025
EXCELLENT graphic on the drain of scientific publishing! zenodo.org/records/1759...
04636
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 14/11/2025
R.I.P. US-based research 😅
000
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
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 Nicolas Clairis
Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 11/11/2025
For-profit journals are supposed to improve research quality, yet they're perversely incentivized to churn out whatever they can monetize. This was happening before AI (see Strain: bit.ly/43gJPUM), and AI will make it worse. It's insane that we volunteer our time to help them do so. 4/n
211324
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 10/11/2025
"Academia should resume control of publishing using non-profit publishing models (e.g. diamond open-access)"
010
Nicolas Clairis @nclairis.bsky.social · 03/11/2025
Not super reassuring for young european researchers 😅 thank you Donald
000
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Matthew Apps @brainapps.bsky.social · 23/10/2025
Looking for a PhD? Interested in cognitive computational neuroscience, motivation and decision-making? See our project listed in the BBSRC MIBTP competition for funding for a 4-year PhD in the @msnlab.bsky.social in the @thechbh.bsky.social. Deadline 27/11. More info: tinyurl.com/5d5vz8m7
findaphd.com
The computational and neural dynamics of human motivation and cognitive control at University of Birmingham on FindAPhD.com
PhD Project - The computational and neural dynamics of human motivation and cognitive control at University of Birmingham, listed on FindAPhD.com
02635
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Alpine Brain Imaging Meeting @abim-ch.bsky.social · 14/10/2025
Get ready for the biggest #ABIM yet! 🥳 We're celebrating our 20th anniversary with a special edition you won't want to miss. 🗓️ Registration & abstract submission: www.unige.ch/ABIM/partici... 💰Early bird fee ends November 9th! #ABIM2026 #neuroimaging
The names of the speakers:
Melanie Boly
Ray Dolan
Davide Folloni
Laura Gwilliams
Charles Hillman
Hilleke Hulshoff Pol
Jean-Rémi King
Daniel Margulies
Lucia Melloni
0139
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Nicole Rust @nicolecrust.bsky.social · 26/09/2025
Save the date 📆. On Oct 22/23, @nationalacademies.org will hold a stellar virtual workshop on brain/body interations (open to all). www.nationalacademies.org/en/our-work/...
Title: Understanding Brain-Body Interactions to Advance Brain Health: A Workshop. Photo: picture of a transparent person with brain and nervous system illuminated.
13017
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Rebecca Sear @rebeccasear.bsky.social · 17/10/2025
Evidence that even when LLMs produce similar results to humans, they “rely on lexical associations and statistical priors rather than contextual reasoning or normative criteria. We term this divergence epistemia: the illusion of knowledge emerging when surface plausibility replaces verification”
pnas.org
PNAS
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a peer reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - an authoritative source of high-impact, original research that broadly spans...
717265
Reposted by Nicolas Clairis
Wanja Wolff @wanjawolff.bsky.social · 10/10/2025
Effort research is booming & it’s tough to keep up with how it's defined and measured. Huge kudos to @dhprlab.bsky.social PhD student @lukas-hack.bsky.social for leading our attempt to create an impartial overview & starter guide. Great effort (pun intended 😉)! Interested? Check it out ⬇️
042