Arsene Kanyamibwa

@arsenedk.bsky.social

Doctoral Researcher in Neuroscience at @helsinki.fi with the O'Brain Lab interested in modern diet effects on the gut-brain axis and behaviour

🚨Update: Our analysis of global APC expenditure has now been expanded to cover more publishers (7 -> 14) and more years (2019-2025). We estimate $15B in APCs paid over seven years, $3.7B in 2025 alone. Elsevier crosses the $1B threshold by itself in 2025. arxiv.org/abs/2608.16322 #ScholComm

Line chart showing 5 biggest publishers from 2019-2025
Eric Schares@eschares.bsky.social · 2y ago

🚨 Preprint! We combine our recent open dataset of #APC prices with the article counts per journal-year from #OpenAlex to estimate how much the academic community has paid in APCs over the last 5 years. A. $8.349 billion ($8.968 B in 2023 USD) $2.5B in 2023 alone. arxiv.org/abs/2407.16551 #metasci

"It is our responsibility to be good stewards of the resources granted to us by donors and organizations by recognizing our limits and orienting ourselves to be as complementary as possible with other effective services." www.cos.io/osf-changes

OSF Changes | Center for Open Science

We are preparing substantial changes to OSF that will reduce its functionality, focus OSF on its unique strengths, and move toward an integrated model with complementary services. As part of that shif...

cos.io

Potential and Pitfalls of Ultra-processed Foods 🤓 doi.org/10.1007/s136...

The Purpose of Food Processing and Ultra-Processed Food: the Potential, Pitfalls and Path Forward for Public Health - Current Nutrition Reports

Purpose of Review The Nova classification considers the purpose and degree of food processing to capture how recent changes in the food system may link with health. Its value for understanding diet-disease relationships is debated. However, reviews typically focus only on its value, or its limitations. Furthermore, by discussing the degree of processing only and not the purpose, or discussing processing in general, reviews of limitations do not address pitfalls of the Nova classification. This conflict and confusion stalls progress to improve public health. Therefore, this review aims to provide a balanced understanding, interpretation and utilisation of the Nova classification and purpose of food processing, with a critical evaluation of its potential value, of pitfalls largely overlooked to date with recommendations to avoid unintended consequences, and constructive reflections on a path forward. Recent Findings The Nova classification offers a framework linking upstream socioeconomic factors with downstream properties of available food, complementing existing food-based dietary guidance to improve access to healthy diets through food systems transformations. However, its practical application, narrative of intrinsic harm of ultra-processing, usage to guide diets in isolation, and overemphasis on mechanisms with weaker evidence are pitfalls that, whilst avoidable, can have unintended consequences. Summary There is agreement on the need for food systems transformation to ensure access and affordability to healthy diets for all. For public health, the purpose behind food processing provides an understanding of systems drivers of food production and accessibility. This consideration can be reflected in policy to improve access to healthy diets, without necessarily explicit use of the Nova classification.

doi.org

Given the profit margins from APCs detailed by Butler et. al 2023: DOI 10.1162/qss_a_00272. In addition to the work required for one review, It might worth giving this some thought🤔

Daniel Gorelick@danielgorelick.bsky.social · 5mo ago

Paying peer reviewers works. Expanded Fast & Fair experiment @biologyopen.bsky.social: • 5.5 vs 37.7 working days to decision with reviews • ~3 vs ~9 reviewer invitations per manuscript • no reduction in editor-assessed review quality • similar acceptance rates www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...

Scatter plot showing that Fast & Fair peer review reached first decision with reviews much faster than conventional peer review: mean 5.5 versus 37.7 working days. Most Fast & Fair manuscripts met the 7-working-day target, while conventional manuscripts were slower and more variable, up to 116 working days.

After a year of feedback and revision, from creative writers to scientists, the article is finally out. I’m grateful to everyone who contributed their time. I hope it sparks reflection, discussion, and a shift in how we think about eating behavior. www.thesciencebasement.org/is-obesity-a...

Is obesity a choice? - The Science Basement

For over a century, obesity research has evolved from a simple story of personal weakness in resisting pleasurable foods to a complex, multifaceted disease. Yet this shift has not reached many of our ...

thesciencebasement.org