Sign in

Stephen Pinfield

@stephenpinfield.bsky.social
594 followers 83 following 4 posts

Professor of Information Services Management at the University of Sheffield, UK, interested in open access, open science, research policy, library and information services. ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4696-764X

PostsRepliesMedia
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Research on Research Institute (RoRI) @rorinstitute.bsky.social · 16/02/2026
📢 New RoRI Working Paper: Does targeted research funding reshape research landscapes? New RoRI evidence from Norway and Switzerland suggests shifts in research topics are gradual - and similar under both targeted and non-targeted funding: researchonresearch.org/does-targete...
083
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Miranda L. Barnes @mirandab-oa.bsky.social · 09/02/2026
Our team in the MORPHSS Project are proud to share our first set of deliverables! We've produced a new catalogue resource for open research in the arts, humanities and qualitative social sciences:
1147
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
MORPHSS @morphss.bsky.social · 09/02/2026
In the MORPHSS report **Openness in the arts, humanities and social sciences: Documenting open research practices beyond STEM**, we explore the narrow focus of existing frameworks of open research & propose more inclusive ways of accommodating the diversity of open practice across all disciplines.
doi.org
Openness in the arts, humanities and social sciences: Documenting open research practices beyond STEM (A MORPHSS Project Report)
Conceptual frameworks of 'Open Science' and their implementation by funders, journals, institutions and other organisations have been criticised on the grounds that they are tailored primarily to quan...
12018
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
MORPHSS @morphss.bsky.social · 09/02/2026
NEW resource for open research in the arts, humanities and qualitative social sciences: The MORPHSS catalogue documents 30 open research practices in AHSS disciplines, with detailed descriptions, examples, and suggested resources and further reading. catalogue.morphss.work
Screenshot of the MORPHSS catalogue
12715
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
LSE Impact @lseimpactblog.bsky.social · 02/02/2026
💥New | We need to move beyond the accept/reject binary in peer review ✍️ @georgealfredcurrie.bsky.social & Damian Pattinson #PeerReview #AcademicSky #AcademicPublishing
blogs.lse.ac.uk
We need to move beyond the accept/reject binary in peer review - LSE Impact
Binary reject/accept peer review has become conflated with validation. The authors outline three myths sustaining this confusion and how we might escape it.
21611
Stephen Pinfield @stephenpinfield.bsky.social · 09/01/2026
Our new preprint on distributed peer review: doi.org/10.31222/osf... Anna Butters, Melanie Benson Marshall @tomstafford.mastodon.online.ap.brid.gy @rorinstitute.bsky.social and colleagues from @volkswagenstiftung.de
doi.org
OSF
042
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Martin Paul Eve @eve.gd · 26/12/2025
Some initial thoughts on @samuelmoore.org's book eve.gd/2025/12/26/a...
eve.gd
Authorship, division of labour, material and digital form; thoughts on Samuel A. Moore's Publishing Beyond the Market
On Christmas day, we had a quiet time this year. One of the things I did was to read Moore, Samuel A., Publishing Beyond the Market: Open Access, Care, and t...
1106
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Ludo Waltman @ludowaltman.bsky.social · 25/12/2025
There is an opportunity for further discussion with Sam on January 16, when Sam will present his book in a seminar organized by @cwtsnl.bsky.social. The seminar is hybrid and is open to all. www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/events/20...
universiteitleiden.nl
Publishing beyond the market
This talk will outline the argument in my new book Publishing Beyond the Market: Open Access, Care, and the Commons (University of Michigan Press, 2025). The book explores the evolution of the open ac...
034
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 12/12/2025
Thanks @stephenpinfield.bsky.social for interviewing me about my book for the @newbooksnetwork.bsky.social podcast. newbooksnetwork.com/publishing-b...
newbooksnetwork.com
Samuel Moore, "Publishing Beyond the Market: Open Access, Care, and the Commons" (U Michigan Press, 2025) - New Books Network
099
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Ludo Waltman @ludowaltman.bsky.social · 12/12/2025
Very much enjoyed last week's meeting in Cambridge about the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model for scholarly publishing. There were lots of highly inspiring discussions, including an important discussion about strengthening coordination between initiatives in this area. asapbio.org/reimagining-...
asapbio.org
Reimagining Scholarly Publishing: Outcomes From A Public Forum To Discuss The Publish, Review, Curate (PRC) Publishing Model – ASAPbio
At a meeting held on the 3rd December 2025 at Kings College, Cambridge over 50 delegates, comprising researchers, publishers, librarians, research funders and
12216
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Research Professional News @resprofnews.bsky.social · 03/12/2025
Funders ‘hold all the cards’ to reform publishing, say academics. Paper urges structural changes to stop “drain” of research resources by for-profit publishers. www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-o...
277
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Ludo Waltman @ludowaltman.bsky.social · 21/11/2025
One year ago we launched the MetaROR (MetaResearch Open Review) publish-review-curate platform. This has been one of the most exciting things I've been involved in over the past year. Very grateful to everyone who has contributed to the development of MetaROR!
1207
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
MetaROR @metaror.bsky.social · 21/11/2025
🎈 Time flies! Exactly one year ago today @rorinstitute.bsky.social and @aimosinc.bsky.social launched MetaROR, a platform to publish metaresearch through the publish-review-curate approach. Over the course of the year, we published 28 articles reviewed by 59 different reviewers. [1/3]
metaror.org
MetaROR Turns One - MetaROR
An exciting year of open, community-driven evaluation of metaresearch One [...]
32113
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Dan Brockington @danbrockington.bsky.social · 11/11/2025
Are you puzzled and struggling with scientific publishing. Are pressed and stressed about the process, and worried about how much it costs? Then please read this fanastic thread from Mark Hanson
175
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
cOAlition S @coalitions-oa.bsky.social · 12/11/2025
1/ cOAlition S announces its 2026–2030 strategy, guided by a refreshed, shared vision: a scholarly communication system that enables rapid, open, transparent & equitable sharing of trustworthy scientific knowledge. www.coalition-s.org/coalition-s-... #OpenScience #ScholarlyComm #Plan_S #OpenAccess
cOAlition S Strategy 2026-2030
1613
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
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 Stephen Pinfield
Dan Brockington @danbrockington.bsky.social · 12/11/2025
Profits from scientific publishing are eye-watering, costing us billions. In ‘The Drain of Scientific Publishing’ (arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820), (building on ‘The Strain of Scientific Publishing’ doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00327) we show how it is harmful – and unnecessary.
arxiv.org
The Drain of Scientific Publishing
The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science. We need the most powerful members of the research community, funders, governments and ...
36641
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Research on Research Institute (RoRI) @rorinstitute.bsky.social · 12/11/2025
Join RoRI Co-Chair @ludowaltman.bsky.social in Cambridge on 3 Dec, where he'll be a keynote at a forum exploring the Publish, Review, Curate model. The event will showcase initiatives and discuss how this model can shape the future of scholarly communication: coar-repositories.org/news-updates...
174
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Juan Pablo Alperin @juancommander.scholcommlab.ca · 21/10/2025
Of particular interest to those interested in #preprints and #openscience , or anyone who has been thinking about the Engagement with Society aspects of OS cc. @asapbio.bsky.social @ludowaltman.bsky.social @stephenpinfield.bsky.social @jacoates.bsky.social
153
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
LSE Impact @lseimpactblog.bsky.social · 18/09/2025
💥New: Distributed Peer Review – How the wisdom of the crowd can allocate grant funding ✍️ Melanie Benson Marshall, Anna Butters, @stephenpinfield.bsky.social @tomstafford.mastodon.online.ap.brid.gy #PeerReview #PRW25 #ResearchPolicy
blogs.lse.ac.uk
Distributed Peer Review – How the wisdom of the crowd can allocate grant funding - Impact of Social Sciences
New research shows engaging the applicants in funding review processes can resolve and reframe many issues facing peer review.
043
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Ludo Waltman @ludowaltman.bsky.social · 13/09/2025
Our @cwts.nl PhD candidate Narmin Rzayeva chose to submit her most recent article, co-authored with @stephenpinfield.bsky.social and me, to MetaROR. The article presents an analysis of the adoption of preprinting across disciplines and regions. Glad to see the feedback provided by two reviewers!
064
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Research on Research Institute (RoRI) @rorinstitute.bsky.social · 08/08/2025
Should we be doing less peer review? As research output grows, many question how much peer review the system can sustain. RoRI's @ludowaltman.bsky.social: “We need to ask ourselves whether there really is a need for all research outputs to be peer reviewed.” www.nature.com/articles/d41...
nature.com
The peer-review crisis: how to fix an overloaded system
Journals and funders are trying to boost the speed and effectiveness of review processes that are under strain.
1126
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Jeffrey Brainard @jeffreybrainard.bsky.social · 16/07/2025
Are scientists citing papers without reading them? #scientificpublishing #AcademicChatter #peerreview @science.org www.science.org/content/arti...
science.org
‘Lazy’ authors? One in six scientific papers mischaracterize work they cite
New study of long-standing problem takes novel approach, asking cited authors to evaluate accuracy
116320
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Ludo Waltman @ludowaltman.bsky.social · 13/07/2025
Very grateful to all colleagues in the metascience community who dropped by at the @metaror.bsky.social stand at the recent #Metascience2025 conference. Glad to see the overwhelming interest in the MetaROR platform! metaror.org @rorinstitute.bsky.social @aimosinc.bsky.social @cwts.nl
MetaROR flyer
21810
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Research on Research Institute (RoRI) @rorinstitute.bsky.social · 23/06/2025
New article in @nature.com covering RoRI's recent study of 100,000+ grant applicants across 14 funding programmes, shedding new light on the Matthew effect in science: how early funding success can compound over a researcher's career - www.nature.com/articles/d41...
02011
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Richard Sever @richardsever.bsky.social · 24/06/2025
Lots of debate in the publishing world about the merits of commercial hosting vs self-hosting vs new-gen open infrastructure. Sunsetting of PubPub is a cautionary tale www.linkedin.com/posts/gabest...
linkedin.com
If you're one of my academic publishing folks: sadly, it's true. | Gabriel Stein
If you're one of my academic publishing folks: sadly, it's true. Due to a funder's unexpected decision to pull support, we've had to make the incredibly difficult decision to wind down...
042
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Johan Rooryck @johanrooryck.bsky.social · 24/06/2025
Excellent report by EUA: www.eua.eu/publications...
eua.eu
Reclaiming academic ownership of the scholarly communication system
EUA - European University Association
041
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Ludo Waltman @ludowaltman.bsky.social · 24/06/2025
Glad to see how various data providers are working on improving the quality of their article-preprint matching, partly based on insights provided by @katiecorker.bsky.social and myself. Hopefully we will soon see the concrete effects of this!
074
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
OASPA - The Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association @oaspa.bsky.social · 22/05/2025
A fresh conversation about the future of open access OASPA, in collaboration with @researchconsulting.bsky.social has released a Next 50% project-primer that frames a fresh conversation about the future of open access. Visit the post bit.ly/3Se3akr for full details, including the primer & survey #OA
035
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Leiden Madtrics @leidenmadtrics.bsky.social · 22/05/2025
To accelerate the sharing of scientific knowledge, researchers increasingly publish their work on preprint servers. In our latest blog post, @ludowaltman.bsky.social, Narmin Rzayeva and @stephenpinfield.bsky.social discuss the state of preprinting in Europe and the Netherlands. 👇 Read it now
leidenmadtrics.nl
The state of preprinting in Europe and the Netherlands
To accelerate the sharing of scientific knowledge, researchers in many disciplines increasingly publish their work on preprint servers. In this post, Ludo Waltman and colleagues discuss the state of p...
075
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
MORPHSS @morphss.bsky.social · 07/05/2025
We are pleased to announce we have a shiny new website with @kcommons.bsky.social and fresh new logo! MORPHSS is ready to roll. Please share. 😊 @theul.bsky.social @camdighum.bsky.social morphss.hcommons.org
morphss.hcommons.org
0148
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Juan Pablo Alperin @juancommander.scholcommlab.ca · 30/04/2025
JOIN US! Postdoctoral Fellowship Opportunity on Preprints and Open Peer Review. Multi-year project. Come with work @nataschachtena.bsky.social, @mariomalicki.bsky.social, me, and the rest of #ScholCommLab. Apply by May 23rd! bit.ly/SCLpostdoc2025 Please share widely!
bit.ly
Hiring: Postdoctoral Fellow on Preprints and Open Peer Review - Scholarly Communications Lab | ScholCommLab
Postdoctoral Fellowship on Preprints and Open Peer Review Description The Scholarly Communications Lab (ScholCommLab) at Simon Fraser University is seeking […]
03036
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Natascha Chtena @nataschachtena.bsky.social · 30/04/2025
1/5🧵After a long trip through peer review limbo, our paper on inclusion and public participation in Open Science policy is finally out! 📖 doi.org/10.1098/rsos...
doi.org
Towards an inclusive Open Science: examining EDI and public participation in policy documents across Europe and the Americas | Royal Society Open Science
National, international and organizational Open Science (OS) policies are being formulated to improve and accelerate research through increased transparency, collaboration and better access to scienti...
1109
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Ludo Waltman @ludowaltman.bsky.social · 01/05/2025
Preprinting helps accelerate dissemination of scientific knowledge. To what extent do researchers adopt preprinting? How does this vary by discipline and region? Together with Narmin Rzayeva and @stephenpinfield.bsky.social, I just published article answering these questions. osf.io/preprints/so...
Adoption of preprinting per discipline and region
21912
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Open Research, University of Sheffield @openresshef.bsky.social · 25/04/2025
This forthcoming hybrid event at @sheffielduni.bsky.social on 21st May will bring together experts to explore the challenges & opportunities in fostering more equitable publication models. More info and booking links on the page below: #OpenAccess #OpenResearch #AcademicSky
sheffield.ac.uk
Supporting Equitable Publication Models: A Roundtable Discussion
Academic publishing is shaped by a system of inequalities which significantly impact where and how researchers publish their work. This roundtable discussion will bring together academics, publishers ...
059
Stephen Pinfield @stephenpinfield.bsky.social · 28/04/2025
Thanks to David Bawden & @lynrobinson.bsky.social for their review doi.org/10.55741/knj... of my book, ‘Achieving global open access’ doi.org/10.4324/9781... “recommended for anyone seeking an insightful analysis of the current problems of global open access, and thoughts...[on] future solutions”
doi.org
252
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Ludo Waltman @ludowaltman.bsky.social · 25/04/2025
Papers mills and other manipulative practices are major problem in scientific publishing system. Addressing this problem requires in-depth system-level understanding of dynamics leading to these practices. At @cwts.nl we have PhD position to work on this! www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/vacancies...
universiteitleiden.nl
PhD Paper Mills and Systematic Manipulation in Research Publishing
PhD candidate Paper Mills and Systematic Manipulation in Research PublishingThe past decade has seen the rise of distinct new challenges for research integrity in the context of scientific publishing....
11517
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Ludo Waltman @ludowaltman.bsky.social · 26/03/2025
I just published a blog post arguing that the reform movements for research assessment and scientific publishing need to better align their agendas. This is crucial for the success of both movements. www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/ass... @leidenmadtrics.bsky.social
leidenmadtrics.nl
Assessment reform and publishing reform need to go hand in hand
The need to reform research assessment and scientific publishing practices is widely recognized. However, Ludo Waltman argues that the assessment and publishing reform movements will be successful onl...
43531
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Ludo Waltman @ludowaltman.bsky.social · 19/03/2025
On April 2 my @rorinstitute.bsky.social colleagues @stephenpinfield.bsky.social and André Brasil will talk about the recently launched @metaror.bsky.social platform. Sign up now for this webinar organized by RoR Registry and Hub! www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/metaror-me... @aimosinc.bsky.social @cwts.nl
eventbrite.co.uk
MetaROR (Metaresearch Open Review) and the 'publish, review, curate' model
MetaROR (MetaResearch Open Review) and the 'publish, review, curate' model of scholarly communication
0127
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
MetaROR @metaror.bsky.social · 13/03/2025
📅 Want to learn more about MetaROR and its publish, review, curate model of scholarly communication? Join @stephenpinfield.bsky.social and André Brasil for this webinar on 2 April at 10:00 BST!
eventbrite.co.uk
MetaROR (Metaresearch Open Review) and the 'publish, review, curate' model
MetaROR (MetaResearch Open Review) and the 'publish, review, curate' model of scholarly communication
035
Stephen Pinfield @stephenpinfield.bsky.social · 04/03/2025
We're advertising for a postdoctoral research associate to work on this exciting new project www.jobs.ac.uk/job/DMD201/r... Come and join the team exploring open research practices in the humanities and social sciences information-studies.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-...
jobs.ac.uk
Research Associate at University of Sheffield
Apply now for the Research Associate role on jobs.ac.uk - the leading job board for higher education jobs. View details.
074
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 04/03/2025
We're advertising another postdoc on @morphss.bsky.social. This is a two-year position at Sheffield working on open research practices in the social sciences (particularly data sharing) with @stephenpinfield.bsky.social Please share! www.jobs.ac.uk/job/DMD201/r...
jobs.ac.uk
Research Associate at University of Sheffield
Looking for a new job opportunity in academia? Check out this job opening for a Research Associate on jobs.ac.uk!
11015
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Natascha Chtena @nataschachtena.bsky.social · 27/02/2025
🔥 Hot off the press! 🔥 Are preprints reshaping journal publishing—or being absorbed into it? Our new paper in JDoc examines the dynamics at play! 👀 With @juancommander.scholcommlab.ca, @stephenpinfield.bsky.social, @fleerackers.bsky.social, & Irene Pasquetto 📖 doi.org/10.1108/JD-0... (1/🧵)
doi.org
Preprint servers and journals: rivals or allies? | Emerald Insight
1
12417
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Ludo Waltman @ludowaltman.bsky.social · 20/01/2025
Very excited about this partnership between STI-ENID2025 and #MetaROR (MetaResearch Open Review), the open peer review platform set up by @aimosinc.bsky.social and @rorinstitute.bsky.social! Looking forward to working together with @gemmaderrick.bsky.social and Neil Jacobs at University of Bristol.
0128
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Ludo Waltman @ludowaltman.bsky.social · 19/01/2025
Last Tuesday an opinion piece authored by me and a number of great colleagues was published on the @force11.bsky.social #Upstream blog. Our piece introduces criteria for innovation-friendly bibliographic databases doi.org/10.54900/d3c.... @cwts.nl
doi.org
Criteria for Bibliographic Databases in a Well-Functioning Scholarly Communication and Research Assessment Ecosystem
Bibliographic databases should support innovation and experimentation. Here, we offer four criteria for innovation-friendly bibliographic databases. We urge the global research community to use databa...
12014
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Richard Sever @richardsever.bsky.social · 14/01/2025
"much to celebrate when it comes to developments in scholarly communication...preprint[s], open peer review, interest in more equitable models...[but] too often [bibliographic] databases hinder innovation rather than support it" upstream.force11.org/criteria-for...
upstream.force11.org
Criteria for Bibliographic Databases in a Well-Functioning Scholarly Communication and Research Assessment Ecosystem
Bibliographic databases should support innovation and experimentation. Here, we offer four criteria for innovation-friendly bibliographic databases. We urge the global research community to use databa...
1165
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 17/12/2024
'Upon accepting NIH funding, recipients grant to NIH the right to make Author Accepted Manuscripts resulting from the funding publicly available in PubMed Central upon the Official Date of Publication' Rights retention baked into the new US federal OA policy. grants.nih.gov/grants/guide...
grants.nih.gov
NOT-OD-25-049: Supplemental Guidance to the 2024 NIH Public Access Policy: Government Use License and Rights
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts: Supplemental Guidance to the 2024 NIH Public Access Policy: Government Use License and Rights NOT-OD-25-049. OD
84919
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Research Consulting @researchconsulting.bsky.social · 18/12/2024
Are you a leader in learned society publishing? We want to hear from you! Participate in our new survey to share your insights on the challenges and opportunities ahead. 💡📈 #ScholarlyPublishing #LearnedSocieties #Survey buff.ly/3VESZaB
023
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Ashley Farley @openaccessmaven.bsky.social · 05/12/2024
These are stellar recommendations sourced from the community. While it's hard to tell the impact the goals may have & who will try to meet them - it will incredibly useful to reference. #openaccess
152
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
Research on Research Institute (RoRI) @rorinstitute.bsky.social · 22/11/2024
The peer review system is broken - a different approach is needed 💡 Kathryn Zeiler, @stephenpinfield.bsky.social and Ludo Waltman write about how increased transparency in the review process could speed scientific progress: theconversation.com/the-peer-rev...
1148