Dan Rudmann

@danrdmnn.bsky.social

Librarian at Utrecht University profile photo by @raymonddekker.bsky.social

🚨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

I feel like the kids who did poorly in science and history class are trying to get revenge on the kids who did well at science and history class and now we’re all going to die

"The journal roughly doubled its publication volume from nearly 5,000 articles in 2023 to over 9,600 in 2024, and published over 10,300 articles in 2025." Good illustration of why commercial publishers are not passive victims of fraudulent behaviour but have actively created the conditions for it.

Retraction Watch@retractionwatch.com · 4w ago

Since June @elsevierconnect.bsky.social has retracted 120 papers from the journal. According to the retraction notices, the journal identified “[s]ystematic, coordinated, and widespread manipulation of the peer-review process.”

It requires expertise to be able to say, “I do not know the answer to that question, and that is becauae thus far scholarly consensus is that we do not have the knowledge needed at this time to answer that question.” Sometimes “I don’t know” is a far more rigorous answer than people might think.

1/ In 2024, I filed a false claims act lawsuit against Elsevier, Springer, Wiley & Informa alleging they systematically overcharged US federal grants for article processing. The gov declined to intervene and now it's public. Some thoughts on what this is, and what it isn't:

And this is why I am against AI, as well as the environmental concerns and the intellectual property theft and the dumbing-down of society. THERE ARE ENOUGH HUMAN-GENERATED CONFECTED SOURCES OUT THERE ALREADY. WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE.

The most broken part of academic publishing is the failure to imagine a way of fixing it beyond the posts on Substack complaining about how broken it is.

This is a key node in the battle for democracy and the survival of our planet - fostering education and research on HOW humans assign meaning to facts, how we create and contextualise information, how we infuse knowledge into everyday decisions and interventions.

this isn't correct lots of eliminated Humanities departments were overfilling classes and effectively subsidizing STEM programs that cost universities money it was never about majors it is about what they could effectively fundraise for which includes this AI bullshit

Paul Matzko@paulmatzko.bsky.social · 4mo ago

This isn't correct. The decline of the humanities is a product of falling demand -- particularly the collapse in enrollment & majors -- and not technological substitution for labor. That said, it's true that AI, although it will help historians do better work, will not solve that crisis.

universities have the brainpower, resources,+ community obligation to develop on-site secure NON PROFIT learning management systems + ed tech overseen by actual educators, not data-extraction censorious surveillance profiteers! VOID THE CONTRACTS theamericanvandal.substack.com/p/mamdani-wi...

Mamdani Win Could Be The First Step Towards Seizing The Means of Knowledge Production

Let CUNY socialize EdTech for all of us.

theamericanvandal.substack.com