If they use the same software we do, it might be "true", since charity-funders probably don't pay FEC (and even UKRI only pay 80% FEC). Fortunately, we're not (yet) prevented from applying - though we are getting nudges about ALSO applying for grants that generate more surplus

Remind them that the funder (e.g. Leverhulme) doesn't allow you to do teaching as a condition of the fellowship?

I continued to do so (though ours are all co-supervised, so for those who weren't about to write-up, I could take a back seat. If you've got >1 about to submit, think carefully about who's going to support that...)

With thanks to the wonderful team @hansonmark.bsky.social
@lariviev.bsky.social @paolocrosetto.bsky.social @gemmaderrick.bsky.social @stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca
@pagomba.bsky.social @stephenpinfield.bsky.social @jameswilsdon.bsky.social and @danbrockington.bsky.social [7/7]

For more on the drain, see our preprint at arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820 and this infographic: zenodo.org/records/1759...

They show us all that there are other ways of doing things (in academia, and in publishing).

Especially when researchers, academic institutions and funders work together. [5/n]

Research institutions and research publishing practices have developed differently in other geographical/linguistic regions. In some places, alternative publishing models have survived or (with new tech) been created. Think: SciELO, Redalyc, and Érudit. [4/n]

For me, as a historian, I was struck by the extent to which the dominant discourse around 'academic publishing and its problems' is really about 'academic publishing in the global north and/or the anglo-sphere' - and is a consequence of the specific history of those regions.