Benjamin Swedlund
@benswedlund.bsky.social
Postdoc in the Morsut lab at USC trying to understand and engineer self-organisation using synthetic gene circuits. SynBio, Dev Bio & Stem Cells. Passionate about science, music, gymnastics, and nature.
What are fairer ways to judge research without relying on flawed proxies like journal brand or impact factor?Leonardo points to NIH-style grant application panel discussions as a model. Could scientific societies adopt a similar approach to review articles or evaluate preprints? 6/6
November 25, 2025 at 11:32 PM
What are fairer ways to judge research without relying on flawed proxies like journal brand or impact factor?Leonardo points to NIH-style grant application panel discussions as a model. Could scientific societies adopt a similar approach to review articles or evaluate preprints? 6/6
Peers evaluation remains a cornerstone of scientific research. But the current format of peer-review is ungrateful and opaque. Leonardo's approach to peer-review is straightforward: does the author's data match their claims? If not, it is up to them to change their claims or generate more data. 5/6
November 25, 2025 at 11:32 PM
Peers evaluation remains a cornerstone of scientific research. But the current format of peer-review is ungrateful and opaque. Leonardo's approach to peer-review is straightforward: does the author's data match their claims? If not, it is up to them to change their claims or generate more data. 5/6
One disadvantage is in case of patent applications, where public disclosure needs to be carefully times. For career progression in academia, preprints seem to be taken into account, although university policies regarding their consideration for hiring and promoting faculty are often unclear. 4/6
November 25, 2025 at 11:32 PM
One disadvantage is in case of patent applications, where public disclosure needs to be carefully times. For career progression in academia, preprints seem to be taken into account, although university policies regarding their consideration for hiring and promoting faculty are often unclear. 4/6
The advantages of preprints are overwhelming: opportunity for rapid & free sharing, getting feedback from the community, proof of productivity in grant applications and for trainees to apply to grants and jobs, and generally a great way to network and generate enthusiasm around our science. 3/6
November 25, 2025 at 11:32 PM
The advantages of preprints are overwhelming: opportunity for rapid & free sharing, getting feedback from the community, proof of productivity in grant applications and for trainees to apply to grants and jobs, and generally a great way to network and generate enthusiasm around our science. 3/6
For fields where it's become common, such as SynBio, preprinting has become a "no brainer". Preprints are becoming the currency in the field, and the line between pre- and post-peer-review is blurring. Some researchers still resist, for unclear reasons. So what are the advantages of preprints? 2/6
November 25, 2025 at 11:32 PM
For fields where it's become common, such as SynBio, preprinting has become a "no brainer". Preprints are becoming the currency in the field, and the line between pre- and post-peer-review is blurring. Some researchers still resist, for unclear reasons. So what are the advantages of preprints? 2/6
Reposted by Benjamin Swedlund
The Drain of Scientific Publishing details very clearly how for-profit publishers making >30% profit margins have corrupted any solution the research community has attempted.
Let's cut ourselves free.
Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: bit.ly/StrainQSS
Oligopoly: bit.ly/OligSciPub
12/12
Let's cut ourselves free.
Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: bit.ly/StrainQSS
Oligopoly: bit.ly/OligSciPub
12/12
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 ...
arxiv.org
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
The Drain of Scientific Publishing details very clearly how for-profit publishers making >30% profit margins have corrupted any solution the research community has attempted.
Let's cut ourselves free.
Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: bit.ly/StrainQSS
Oligopoly: bit.ly/OligSciPub
12/12
Let's cut ourselves free.
Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: bit.ly/StrainQSS
Oligopoly: bit.ly/OligSciPub
12/12
This will be challenging and will require advocacy and persistence, but I believe it is necessary to maintain public trust in science – because we steward taxpayer’s money, and we have a responsibility to use it wisely. 5/5
My slides, feel free to check out or reuse: docs.google.com/presentation...
My slides, feel free to check out or reuse: docs.google.com/presentation...
20251024 Swedlund Benjamin - Reimagining Scientific Evaluation.pptx
Roundtable Discussion: Reimagining Scientific Evaluation Benjamin Swedlund | ASAPbio Fellow 2025
docs.google.com
October 27, 2025 at 5:47 PM
This will be challenging and will require advocacy and persistence, but I believe it is necessary to maintain public trust in science – because we steward taxpayer’s money, and we have a responsibility to use it wisely. 5/5
My slides, feel free to check out or reuse: docs.google.com/presentation...
My slides, feel free to check out or reuse: docs.google.com/presentation...
Change is on the horizon thanks to initiatives such as preprints and open peer-review. But scientists need to embrace this change and move beyond the status quo of an outdated system. 4/5
October 27, 2025 at 5:47 PM
Change is on the horizon thanks to initiatives such as preprints and open peer-review. But scientists need to embrace this change and move beyond the status quo of an outdated system. 4/5
Is it working? Not really - the current system struggles to root out scientific fraud in the form of paper mills or questionable research practices. It also lacks transparency in peer-review and editorial decisions. Most people agree that publishers generous profit margins (>35%) are unfair. 3/5
October 27, 2025 at 5:47 PM
Is it working? Not really - the current system struggles to root out scientific fraud in the form of paper mills or questionable research practices. It also lacks transparency in peer-review and editorial decisions. Most people agree that publishers generous profit margins (>35%) are unfair. 3/5
How do we do science? When and how are we evaluated as scientists? The enthusiasm in the room was palpable - this is a subjects scientists of all career stages deeply care about. I first introduced the endless cycle of "getting money-doing stuff" that characterises an researcher's career. 2/5
October 27, 2025 at 5:47 PM
How do we do science? When and how are we evaluated as scientists? The enthusiasm in the room was palpable - this is a subjects scientists of all career stages deeply care about. I first introduced the endless cycle of "getting money-doing stuff" that characterises an researcher's career. 2/5
So how do we judge the quality & impact of a preprint?
What platforms exist for journal-agnostic peer review?
👀 Let’s talk about that next week.
5/5
What platforms exist for journal-agnostic peer review?
👀 Let’s talk about that next week.
5/5
September 8, 2025 at 4:11 PM
So how do we judge the quality & impact of a preprint?
What platforms exist for journal-agnostic peer review?
👀 Let’s talk about that next week.
5/5
What platforms exist for journal-agnostic peer review?
👀 Let’s talk about that next week.
5/5
Do preprints have to end up in journals? Stefano Vianello boldly says no.
He preprinted his PhD work, then had it peer-reviewed via a journal-agnostic platform — refusing to choose between paywalls or APCs.
A great read: stefanovianello.github.io/posts/2021/0...
4/5
He preprinted his PhD work, then had it peer-reviewed via a journal-agnostic platform — refusing to choose between paywalls or APCs.
A great read: stefanovianello.github.io/posts/2021/0...
4/5
The “pre” in (my) “preprint” is for pre-figurative
stefanovianello.github.io
September 8, 2025 at 4:11 PM
Do preprints have to end up in journals? Stefano Vianello boldly says no.
He preprinted his PhD work, then had it peer-reviewed via a journal-agnostic platform — refusing to choose between paywalls or APCs.
A great read: stefanovianello.github.io/posts/2021/0...
4/5
He preprinted his PhD work, then had it peer-reviewed via a journal-agnostic platform — refusing to choose between paywalls or APCs.
A great read: stefanovianello.github.io/posts/2021/0...
4/5
Why is preprint uptake so low?
❌ Cons often cited:
* ❓ Lower perceived quality (though studies show minor changes pre vs post vs. peer-review): tinyurl.com/plosbiologyP...
* 📉 Variable recognition for promotions/graduation
* 🏁 Scooping concerns
* ⚠️ Risk of misinformation
3/5
❌ Cons often cited:
* ❓ Lower perceived quality (though studies show minor changes pre vs post vs. peer-review): tinyurl.com/plosbiologyP...
* 📉 Variable recognition for promotions/graduation
* 🏁 Scooping concerns
* ⚠️ Risk of misinformation
3/5
Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic
During the COVID-19 pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, but can we trust them? This study reveals that the majority of preprints publis...
journals.plos.org
September 8, 2025 at 4:11 PM
Why is preprint uptake so low?
❌ Cons often cited:
* ❓ Lower perceived quality (though studies show minor changes pre vs post vs. peer-review): tinyurl.com/plosbiologyP...
* 📉 Variable recognition for promotions/graduation
* 🏁 Scooping concerns
* ⚠️ Risk of misinformation
3/5
❌ Cons often cited:
* ❓ Lower perceived quality (though studies show minor changes pre vs post vs. peer-review): tinyurl.com/plosbiologyP...
* 📉 Variable recognition for promotions/graduation
* 🏁 Scooping concerns
* ⚠️ Risk of misinformation
3/5
✅ Pros of preprints:
* 🚀 Rapid sharing
* 👀 More visibility&citations (tinyurl.com/bioRXiv-cita...)
* ⏱ Priority (who did it first)
* 📑 Proof of productivity for job&grant applications
* 🌍 Open access
* ⚖️ No journal branding bias
Yet only ~13% of life science papers are preprinted first.
2/5
* 🚀 Rapid sharing
* 👀 More visibility&citations (tinyurl.com/bioRXiv-cita...)
* ⏱ Priority (who did it first)
* 📑 Proof of productivity for job&grant applications
* 🌍 Open access
* ⚖️ No journal branding bias
Yet only ~13% of life science papers are preprinted first.
2/5
The relationship between bioRxiv preprints, citations and altmetrics
Abstract. A potential motivation for scientists to deposit their scientific work as preprints is to enhance its citation or social impact. In this study we assessed the citation and altmetric advantage of bioRxiv, a preprint server for the biological sciences. We retrieved metadata of all bioRxiv preprints deposited between November 2013 and December 2017, and matched them to articles that were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. Citation data from Scopus and altmetric data from Altmetric.com were used to compare citation and online sharing behavior of bioRxiv preprints, their related journal articles, and nondeposited articles published in the same journals. We found that bioRxiv-deposited journal articles had sizably higher citation and altmetric counts compared to nondeposited articles. Regression analysis reveals that this advantage is not explained by multiple explanatory variables related to the articles’ publication venues and authorship. Further research will be required to establish whether such an effect is causal in nature. bioRxiv preprints themselves are being directly cited in journal articles, regardless of whether the preprint has subsequently been published in a journal. bioRxiv preprints are also shared widely on Twitter and in blogs, but remain relatively scarce in mainstream media and Wikipedia articles, in comparison to peer-reviewed journal articles.
direct.mit.edu
September 8, 2025 at 4:11 PM
✅ Pros of preprints:
* 🚀 Rapid sharing
* 👀 More visibility&citations (tinyurl.com/bioRXiv-cita...)
* ⏱ Priority (who did it first)
* 📑 Proof of productivity for job&grant applications
* 🌍 Open access
* ⚖️ No journal branding bias
Yet only ~13% of life science papers are preprinted first.
2/5
* 🚀 Rapid sharing
* 👀 More visibility&citations (tinyurl.com/bioRXiv-cita...)
* ⏱ Priority (who did it first)
* 📑 Proof of productivity for job&grant applications
* 🌍 Open access
* ⚖️ No journal branding bias
Yet only ~13% of life science papers are preprinted first.
2/5