@jscaux thanks for sharing Jean-Sébastien!

Feel very seen by this comment rn
> failed funding applications however have very real consequences for real people employed by initiatives actually doing open science on the ground

Congratulations to the 45 grantees of the @OpenScienceNL infrastructure round! With 35M euros allocated, this is major news.

This post is however reaching out to candidate individuals and teams who did *not* submit to the final (second) round after submitting a preproposal.

Mastodon hive mind, can you help me trace them? I'd like to hear about those projects.

I have some thoughts on how allocation of resources to open science initiatives could be improved. jscaux.org/blog/post/2025/12/1

@egonw @scipost @chemistry these two things are distinct but not unrelated.

It's completely normal (and useful) for bigger breakthroughs to reach a wider audience.

It's useful and economical of everybody's time to have claims of groundbreaking discoveries be subjected to tougher refereeing.

It's simply practical to enable publishing more straightforward results in a more streamlined way.

That's exactly what SciPost tries to do. Many scientists have in fact pushed us to indeed do that.

@egonw @scipost @chemistry well opinions differ on this one, and that's OK.

Here is my take: you don't want multi (numerous!)-layered things. But having 2 layers isn't like having 10.

I for one can take my own papers, and extract the 10% of them which achieve something special and which I think everybody should read, the rest being better reserved for the specialists "inside" my field (the core).

@telescoper we were given the "Metadata Game Changers" award in 2020 from having the most complete metadata of ~1700 publishers at Crossref. See metadatagamechangers.com/work-

@telescoper I really admire all you've done with @ojastro.bsky.social.

Perhaps a fairer statement would have been "struggling financially because sponsorships don't match their level of activity"?

Perhaps also "switch to an arXiv overlay model and abandon their independent open infrastructure, open refereeing, recognized metadata facilities and uniquely complete and transparent financial information systems"?

Dunno, 🤔 just thinking out loud here.

In recent years, has grown into an essential open science infrastructure.

Our sustainability is however under threat.

Only 147 out of 1351 (a mere 11%) benefitting organizations have supported us.

This ongoing level of freeriding means we are now at a crossroads.

Academic organizations urgently need to change tack and fulfil their promise to sustainably support scientists-led, not-for-profit publishing infrastructure.

Help us convince them to support us.

jscaux.org/blog/post/2025/05/1

@gleet Hi Paul, I dropped Mac years ago but when I used it, my disk was regularly getting clogged up by Spotlight's automatic indexing. It's very dumb (in particular it doesn't check for available space before indexing). If you block that and remove the associated files, it might solve your problem.

Show older
SciPost social

The social media site for academics and anyone interested in science done right.