It should have been disowned, not republished
Andreas De Block on Twitter / X
It took Nature three years to publish this rebuttal, which clearly demonstrates the fundamental flaws in the original paper. In the meantime, the paper's conclusions influenced scientific debate and policy decisions. Such delays in correcting flawed research do real damage. https://t.co/QI3Ei3PE70— Andreas De Block (@DeblockBlock) August 13, 2026
“A bizarre failure in the review process at PNAS”
Ray Fisman sent me an email with the above title and a link to the following story.
Jason Shepherd on Twitter / X
I have quite a lot of thoughts on this..that won't fit in a tweet. Bottomline is that there are issues scientists in the US would love to improve - faster review, less grant writing, more stability and freedom to do risky science. The folks celebrating this doc are mostly../1 https://t.co/xlPAH9XYNC— Jason Shepherd (@JasonSynaptic) July 23, 2026
Publishing is fucked. The ATmosphere could save it. | Paul Stephenson | Offprint
Building a future for publishing that keeps authors and readers at its heart.
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 the Commons (University of Michigan Press, 2025). This is a most enjoyable book that outlines a project and worldview that I know Sam has been cultivating and refining for many years. I should stress that I am not writing a “review” here. I would be conflicted anyway as I am thanked in the acknowledgements. But it did, like all good books, make me think and I wanted to jot down some thoughts. These thoughts are not necessarily novel – sometimes Sam even explores some of them in the book – but I thought it would be enjoyable to express them nonetheless.
The Maple (@readthemaple.com)
Canadian news & opinion that confronts the status quo. 100% reader-funded & independent. Edited by @alex.readthemaple.com & @davide.readthemaple.com Website: https://www.readthemaple.com/ Email list: http://www.readthemaple.com/signup-bluesky/
The Conversation Canada (@ca.theconversation.com)
Written by academic experts, edited by journalists, backed by evidence ✉️ Newsletter: http://bit.ly/2W8X3Ev 🎧 Podcast: http://bit.ly/39v1EE0 ➕ Donate: http://bit.ly/3GV1uam
At The New York Times, an Uprising Over James Bennet’s Incompetence
The paper’s staff is in an incandescent rage over the decision to publish an op-ed calling for the violent disruption of First Amendment rights.
What happened to Science Goodreads and how do we rebuild it? A 65 million dollar question (at least) - CAIROS Blog
The story of the rise and fall of Mendeley
Theorizing the Human Sciences in the Age of Absolute Disruption: Historical Criticism and Its Remainders | The Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory | JCRT
Adam DJ Brett reads Jason Ānanda Josephson-Storm’s trilogy — The Myth of Disenchantment, Metamodernism, and The Genealogy of Genealogy — as one project asking whether a thing exists, how it arose, what grounds our claims
Guest Post — Is Growth Always Good News? 2026 Article Submission Surges - The Scholarly Kitchen
ScholarOne saw a submission surge in the first quarter of 2026 — evidence that AI is increasing the strain on peer review's social contract with researchers.
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 Universities, to lead the drive to re-communalise publishing to serve science not the market.
Fascinating talk on the history of peer review from Melinda Baldwin at @icssi.org, with some parallels to current crises. Also I hadn't realized peer review was such an American thing.
I was not reviewer 2. But I am so annoyed by Americans pretending the whole open science movement is funded by John Arnold. His investments are absolutely dwarfed by what the European Union and European science funders have invested in Open science. Only incredibly biased people would ignore this.
