Nicolas Clairis
LightNews LightNews
nclairis.bsky.social
Nicolas Clairis
@nclairis.bsky.social
230 followers 460 following 86 posts
Postdoc passionate about effort-based decision-making and the roots of effort aversiveness.

If you are on Mastodon, my profile is: @[email protected]
Posts Replies Media Videos
nclairis.bsky.social
Little error on the contact email: this is the correct adress wheretopublish-contact at protonmail.com
February 11, 2026 at 11:13 AM
nclairis.bsky.social
and for those in ecology & evolution, there is also the DAFNEE database which hilights specifically ethical journals in that field dafnee.isem-evolution.fr and that we also exploited to build where to publish. Thanks @nicolasgaltier.bsky.social for the exchanges!
DAFNEE, a Database of Academia Friendly jourNals in Ecology and Evolution
dafnee.isem-evolution.fr
February 10, 2026 at 3:02 PM
nclairis.bsky.social
Because they are a for-profit journal that wants to make money and they know that topic is hot within and beyond scientists... just a wild guess 😁
February 10, 2026 at 1:21 PM
nclairis.bsky.social
For more literature on the subject, you can also look at all the great work done by @hansonmark.bsky.social, @paolocrosetto.bsky.social and colleagues bsky.app/profile/hans...
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · Nov 11
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
February 10, 2026 at 9:42 AM
nclairis.bsky.social
Change is possible and alternatives exist. Let’s make it happen!
If you would like to contribute, don’t hesitate to write to us at [email protected] or directly via contributing on the database or website.
#ScientificPublicationSystem
#OpenAccess
#OpenScience
#AcademicSky
4/4
February 10, 2026 at 9:42 AM
nclairis.bsky.social
You can use this database both to choose where to publish your next paper based on the publisher type, the APC and the business model of the journal, as well as to select which journals you are ok to review for or to act as an editor for. 3/4
February 10, 2026 at 9:42 AM
nclairis.bsky.social
There is a growing consensus in academia that the current scientific publishing system needs to change. Where to Publish? was built as a database of all life-science journals to promote that change by highlighting journals that are open access and whose revenues directly serve Academia. 2/4
February 10, 2026 at 9:42 AM
nclairis.bsky.social
@legorafi.bsky.social devrait déclarer forfait face à la réalité à ce stade.
January 27, 2026 at 9:02 AM
nclairis.bsky.social
Merci pour l'éclairage! Je n'ai pas assez suivi la littérature sur le sujet pour avoir un avis très tranché donc tous vos éléments de réflexion là-dessus sont intéressants.
January 18, 2026 at 12:34 PM
nclairis.bsky.social
Merci pour ce super thread! Dans le cas des théories complotistes j'avais trouvé super intéressantes les études montrant un lien avec les inégalités sociales suggérant qu'il s'agit d'un phénomène social avant tout www.sciencepresse.qc.ca/actualites-s...
Le sentiment d’injustice nourrit les théories du complot
Une théorie du complot ne naît pas simplement d’une perception négative des « élites » qui tireraient les ficelles dans l’ombre. Encore faut-il, pour ceux et celles qui y croient, un sentiment d’être ...
www.sciencepresse.qc.ca
January 18, 2026 at 8:45 AM
nclairis.bsky.social
@albertm.bsky.social à prendre en compter dans tes futurs talks sur les biais cognitifs (si pas déjà le cas)!
January 18, 2026 at 8:41 AM
nclairis.bsky.social
Super interesting! Thanks for sharing! You should write a short communication or at least a preprint about that so people can also share and learn about that outside of bluesky!
January 6, 2026 at 8:56 AM