We cannot keep training scientists, doctors, and professionals on a foundation of fear, burnout, and abuse.
The transformation must be systemic and collective.
Grief is not enough.
Reform is overdue.

This moment should be a call to reexamine our professional training systems:
🔹 Dignified working conditions
🔹 Mental health as a priority
🔹 Real reporting mechanisms
🔹 Institutional cultures rooted in care—not submission

Punishing those directly involved is not enough.
Without structural change, tragedies like this will continue.
Academic systems must be reformed. What’s often framed as “rigorous training” is, in many cases, institutionalized violence.

The problem is not unique—it’s structural:
• Rigid hierarchies
• Normalized mistreatment
• No safe channels for reporting
• Mental health neglected
• Precarity framed as “passion”

The case is tragic, but not isolated. It reflects a broader systemic issue—one that affects not only the medical field, but academic and professional training across disciplines:
A model that normalizes abuse under the guise of “rigor.”

The outcomes?

Fairer evaluation

More reproducibility

Real inclusion

Stronger science-society link

Faster social impact

Open Science isn’t just about open access. It’s about fixing the system. #SystemicChange #ScienceForThe21stCentury

The model draws inspiration from the Center for Open Science's Open Science Framework, UK's Octopus, t
UNESCO's Open Science Recommendation and the open-source movement. It proposes decentralized infrastructure, responsible metrics, and interoperable protocols. #OpenInfrastructure #ScienceReimagined

Peer review remains central—but reviews are also reviewed. Only when enough reviews are approved is the contribution published. Transitioning from having 2 or 3 max reviews to having a minimum requirement. This builds a more reliable and accountable ecosystem. #TrustInScience #OpenReview

This system would recognize everyone who contributes: students, technicians, researchers, even citizens and administrative personnel. It fosters collaboration, improves transparency, and makes the full process of science visible. #InclusiveScience

This publishing reform must go hand in hand with research assessment reform. We need systems that give real credit to all agents contributing to the knowledge stack—not just authors on a paper. #ReformEvaluation #ScienceEquity

We propose an open publishing model where every step—hypotheses, methodologies, data, analyses, and scientists' main contributions: interpretation and peer review—is an independent, traceable, and peer-reviewed contribution. #OpenScience #FairEvaluation

The current model hides key contributions: advice, method design, raw data, interim analysis, negative results. It also discourages collaboration, limits reproducibility, and excludes those who don’t fit the "paper author" mold. #AcademicReform #OpenResearch