Jonny Coates
@jacoates.bsky.social
2.8K followers 490 following 1.1K posts
Leading advocate for preprints, integrity, community & improved research culture | Host Preprints in Motion podcast | Immunologist | https://linktr.ee/jacoates
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
jacoates.bsky.social
I also really need to have a chat with @dorassessment.bsky.social at some point :)
jacoates.bsky.social
This is how you do "invite only" events!

You're never going to get good viewpoint diversity if you rely on people you already know - who often already attend the same meetings and say the same things over and over.

www.cerra.aau.dk - also a great looking meeting!
EU Presidency High-Level Conference on Reforming Research Assessment
At this conference, Aalborg University together with co-organizers as well as the Danish Presidency and the European Commission will address the need for reforming research assessment, present progres...
www.cerra.aau.dk
jacoates.bsky.social
Yes to the attention score method of determining when to do peer review!

This is something I've suggested a few times in the past.
hansonmark.bsky.social
Thanks @iansample.bsky.social at @theguardian.com podcast for chatting #ScientificPublishing.

This pod follows from The Strain on Scientific Publishing & reports of publisher profit margins rivalling Google etc...

Paper: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...

Pod: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/s...
Fraud, AI slop and huge profits: is science publishing broken?
Podcast Episode · Science Weekly · 02/10/2025 · 18m
podcasts.apple.com
jacoates.bsky.social
I'm biased but I think this is a really good guide 😉

I'm also very open to feedback and collaborations on a version 2.

Or, even better, tailoring this to specific departments/institutions to incorporate specific institutional policies too! (*cough* any librarians interested?)
ripplingideas.bsky.social
A new PI’s guide to promoting open science and preprints in your lab

Download the guide Provided under a CC-BY licence.
A new PI’s guide to promoting open science and preprints in your lab
Download the guide Provided under a CC-BY licence.
ripplingideas.org
jacoates.bsky.social
This is fantastic to see ❤️

If anyone is new to preprints then I've been developing some factual and informative ~5 min whiteboard videos - bit.ly/preprint_whi...

Also always happy to answer any questions anyone may have! Would love to help you in posting your first preprint
jacoates.bsky.social
This is really a great way to get your research!
ripplingideas.bsky.social
RSS feeds! You can create your own custom searches for papers and preprints using keywords and have them delivered to your chosen RSS reader.

Actually have a video and article on this coming :)
richardsever.bsky.social
"One of the simplest and most reliable ways to stay current is through journal table of contents (ToC) alerts"

Discuss...

My 2c: For many fields, this is an inefficient strategy for primary research - most papers simply won't be relevant. But... 1/n

www.nature.com/articles/d41...
jacoates.bsky.social
Starmer is handing the country to reform.
jacoates.bsky.social
Sad to say but I have zero confidence in the leadership. It's a complete failure and dereliction of responsibility and leadership.

Completely out of touch with the average person and seemingly ignoring any criticism (advice) or more diverse viewpoints.
jacoates.bsky.social
Oh this looks so interesting! I wish meetings and workshops would be more hybrid - it's so easy for a smaller meeting
jacoates.bsky.social
I think experiments are brilliant (whether I agree with them or not) and I still give talks about PRC but the coordinated effort to make that the dominant model is where I find problems. It shuts down other experiments which is the opposite of what's really needed right not, imo.
jacoates.bsky.social
A great example is PREreview. They are a platform that genuinely expands who reviews, what can be reviewed, training and is more focussed on helping authors improve work as opposed to a QC step. I'd love more efforts like that. Or a really in depth detailed review service.
jacoates.bsky.social
I've seen notes from meetings about PRC (which as a dissenting voice I wasn't invited to) and it's a lot of the same people saying the same things. No real critical discussion. In part I suspect because those advocating for PRC have vested interests in it being the dominant model.
jacoates.bsky.social
My problem is the lack of real improvements to review and the refusal of those involved to have open and critical discussions - dissenting voiced and any alternative viewpoints are not seemingly welcomed. Certainly not listened too.
jacoates.bsky.social
Absolutely if the preprint has been revised then yes. Or separately those reviews should. But a preprint that hasn't changed, hosted somewhere else gets us right back into the territory of brands - where you were reviewed now (instead of where you published)
jacoates.bsky.social
I'll be writing and making more noise about the PRC model and my wider concerns around that now being a goal and why I belive it's a mistake
jacoates.bsky.social
The original preprint isn't changed so not sure that does constitute a reason for a new DOI. PIDs for reviews/editorial assessment is great - and could be a way of linking them to the preprint.
jacoates.bsky.social
I think there needs to be much better discussion on whether this is necessary at all. Preprint platforms are capable of displaying this kind of info alongside the preprint - in addition to a wider array if trust markers (which is better for science & readers)

So why make it harder for readers?
jacoates.bsky.social
Yes! I've been calling for at least a basic metascience and history of science/publishing course as part of every students training for ages now.
jacoates.bsky.social
It definitely seems to have become a goal. I've been trying to talk about that evolutionary space but I feel like I've lost that battle (though my new nonprofit is extremely focussed on that).
jacoates.bsky.social
I think this is effectively what PRC will do. But preprints don't themselves have to be hijacked like this. We could focus more on wider signals of trust/reliability, less focus on just peer review whilst also shifting what it actually is.
jacoates.bsky.social
I've been calling it PITA (preprint - integrity & trust - assessment). I hate PRC as I feel it's being pushed without enough critical thought and has huge potential to damage the preprint space.