For scientists choosing where to build their careers, these questions are essential, and they shape who decides the U.S. is, or isn’t, a viable place to do science.

From my experience, many U.S. institutions are not well prepared (or willing) to support international trainees when uncertainty arises. That reality weighs heavily on students deciding where to train.

I didn’t have good answers, only advice to ask universities directly what support they actually provide. Like: Will the institution help with visa renewals? Is legal support available if immigration issues arise? What resources exist for international trainees during periods of uncertainty?

It was about life in the U.S.:
What’s it like living and working there?
Will I be able to travel home to see my family?
Will I feel secure as an immigrant?

The most common question I was asked by Indian students applying to PhD programs in the U.S. wasn’t about science.

One benefit of Fast & Fair peer review at Biology Open @biologyopen.bsky.social @biologists.bsky.social is reduced friction: decisions with reviews in 7 working days, enabled by paid, accountable reviewers.

Publishers should serve science, not extract value from it.

These inequities don’t stop at admissions. Long, opaque peer review timelines can be more consequential for international students, affecting visas, graduation timelines, job offers, and family decisions.

The result is extraordinary competition for non-U.S. citizens. The international students who do enter U.S. PhD programs are often exceptional. Making this harder runs counter to scientific excellence.

In the U.S. biomedical sciences, NIH graduate fellowships (F30, F31, F32) are restricted to citizens and permanent residents, sharply limiting access to federally funded PhD programs for international students.

I recently returned from a scientific trip to India (shout out to #CMMDR at Shiv Nadar University, @wormlockholmes.bsky.social at TIFR). The science was outstanding.

Under current NIH rules, can't use grant $ to pay non-publication fees such as this, so will exclude many labs in USA. Also, we currently have no reliable, reproducible, robust methods for detecting the use of LLMs. Instead, how about journals pay peer reviewers, like Biology Open does?

Except they won't get blacklisted, because authors prize impact factor/reputation above all else. If Nature or Cell steals $ arguing submissions written by AI, I'll bet it would cause only a small drop in submissions

Paying reviewers won’t fix everything, but it signals which journals take rigor seriously. Publishers should serve science, not extract value from it.

Also: Biology Open @biologyopen.bsky.social is published by the nonprofit Company of Biologists @biologists.bsky.social No shareholders. No growth-at-all-costs incentives.

One way to push back: Biology Open @biologyopen.bsky.social contracts with & pays peer reviewers (£220/manuscript), enforcing explicit quality standards. Low-quality reviews aren’t paid.

journals.biologists.com/bio/pages/fa...

End result: publishing dominated by quantity, distorted by profit, and detached from its purpose of advancing knowledge.

Five stages of enshittification of science publishing @mlinnenluecke.bsky.social @profcarlrhodes.bsky.social
research papers are commodified, pay-to-publish explodes, peer review quality erodes, volume overwhelms signal, and fraud & low quality spreads

theconversation.com/the-5-stages...

Submit to Biology Open and you’ll get a decision with reviews within 7 working days of submission. Spread the word. journals.biologists.com/bio/article/...

So the statement "When you see Development on the CV of an applicant, you know it's high-quality, trustworthy work" represents a different view from, say, eLife. Because when you see "eLife" on a CV, you know you have to read the peer reviews to see if it is high-quality, trustworthy work... 3/n