Tessera
Folgen

Nicolas Dray

@nicolasdray.bsky.social

Driven by curiosity.

8 Posts290 Follower429 Folgt
Samuel Moore@samuelmoore.org · 3d ago

"Alperin alleges he learned insider details about APC pricing as a member of the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association, including “outright unlawful conduct” and “conspiratorial discussions” among the publishers, the complaint states." Go get 'em @juancommander.scholcommlab.ca !

Federal lawsuit accuses four major publishers of extorting article processing charges

iStock A lawsuit filed under the U.S. False Claims Act accuses four major publishers of perpetrating a decade-long scheme to defraud the government by charging exorbitant article processing charges…

retractionwatch.com

Dan McQuillan@danmcquillan.bsky.social · 5d ago

AlphaFold was always bait-and-switch; now Google confirms it. A hyper-narrow bioinformatrics model with actual science bolted on whose guesses can be experimentally checked was never a licence for socially-applied slop at scale, but it's done its job. Effort transferred to LLMs.

Screenshot of Financial Times headline reading "Google DeepMind dismantles Nobel-winning AlphaFold team in strategy shift" with photo of Demis Hassabis & John Jumper
Ian Paul Sieren@ianpaulsieren.bsky.social · 2mo ago

How much is a trillion? Say you have $1,000. Now, imagine that $1,000 as a millimeter. $1 million would be a meter. (Just over 3 feet) $1 billion would be a kilometer. (Just under 2/3 of a mile) $1 trillion would be 1,000 kilometers. (The distance from Portland, OR to Salt Lake City, UT)!

RogueESR@rogueesr.bsky.social · 3mo ago

#ESR « Vous nous avez "piqué" 500 millions en deux ans », le coup de gueule du PDG du CNRS devant le Sénat. www.challenges.fr/economie/vou...

« Vous nous avez "piqué" 500 millions en deux ans », le coup de gueule du PDG du CNRS devant le Sénat

« Je ne sais pas comment mon successeur va boucler le budget l’an prochain. » Devant les sénateurs, l’actuel PDG du CNRS est revenu sur les contraintes budgétaires imposées à l’institution, malgré une...

challenges.fr

Aaron Rupar@atrupar.com · 4mo ago

RFK Jr: "President Trump has a different way of calculating percentages. If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that's a 600% reduction."

RogueESR@rogueesr.bsky.social · 4mo ago

#ESR Au CNRS, une coupe budgétaire inédite fragilise un peu plus la recherche : « On va dans le mur ». La subvention publique accordée au CNRS, défalquée de l’inflation, a fondu de 11 % en cinq ans. Plus encore en prenant en compte les ponctions internes. www.lemonde.fr/sciences/art...

Au CNRS, une coupe budgétaire inédite fragilise un peu plus la recherche : « On va dans le mur »

Le PDG du Centre national de recherche scientifique, Antoine Petit, a annoncé, le 24 mars, une baisse supplémentaire de 20 millions d’euros sur le budget 2026 de l’institution. Les chercheurs et les d...

lemonde.fr

RogueESR@rogueesr.bsky.social · 4mo ago

#ESR Le point sur le budget du CNRS. L'un des candidats à la tête de l'institution serait favorable à procéder à une année blanche sans recrutement en 2027, en attendant la présidentielle qui… Notre analyse. rogueesr.fr/soldes-sur-l...

Soldes sur les sciences : -25%

« [Ma mère] estimait que la civilisation d’un pays se mesure d’après le pourcentage du budget qui est consacré à l’Éducation nationale, et malheureusement la France ne venait pas dans un bon rang à…

rogueesr.fr

Christophe 🔬 Leterrier@christlet.bsky.social · 4mo ago

Ne nous inquiétons pas : le Crédit Impôt Recherche, subvention déguisée qui coûte à peu près deux fois le budget total du CNRS, continuera à faire briller la recherche française

RogueESR@rogueesr.bsky.social · 4mo ago

Les dotations aux unités du CNRS sont tombées: cure d'austérité trumpienne pour la recherche fondamentale. Pour la première fois, le budget prévisionnel était déficitaire, de 239 millions € (nous l'avions annoncé). Encore 20 millions de moins demandés par Matignon. rogueesr.fr/wp-content/u...

Paolo Crosetto@paolocrosetto.bsky.social · 9mo ago

What is the most profitable industry in the world, this side of the law? Not oil, not IT, not pharma. It's *scientific publishing*. We call this the Drain of Scientific Publishing. Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820 Background: doi.org/10.1162/qss_... Thread @markhanson.fediscience.org.ap.brid.gy 👇

Bild
Mark A. Hanson@hansonmark.bsky.social · 9mo ago

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.
Gabriel Aughey@gabrielaughey.bsky.social · 9mo ago

Always shocking to see these kinds of data collected together. "[publishers made]US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024" - That's $12 billion diverted away from actual research or materially supporting the community - these are disgusting numbers.

Mark A. Hanson@hansonmark.bsky.social · 9mo ago

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.