Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · 9d

*mulder’s eyes widen as scully hands him the ancient xylophone*

1

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · 14d

1 3

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · 16d

Banana ball brain

1 1

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · 27d

What a pull

1

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · 27d

Too busy hustling

1 1

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · Aug 14

You listed six different publishers that are operating at scale. That’s more competitive than many mature industries, and it doesn’t include the many non-profit and university publishers

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · Aug 13

The best way to think about academic publishing is that the creators are also the consumers. No one is “buying” our papers at the newsstand. Elsevier is basically a management company that gets a fee for running the peer-review process. If they charge too much, a competitor will replace them.

Mushtaq Bilal, PhD @mushtaqbilalphd.bsky.social · Aug 13

Major academic publishers' revenue and what they pay authors and reviewers:

Revenue:
Elsevier: $3.9 billion
Springer Nature: $2 billion
Wolters Kluwer: $1.6 billion
Wiley: $1.8 billion
Taylor & Francis: $800 million
Sage: $500 million

They pay:
Authors: $0
Reviewers: $0

1 5

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · Aug 11

Henry Hudson to blame presumably

2

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · Aug 11

East River?

2 1

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · Aug 7

Love that 5% of people don’t care for maps on their phones. Give me the Rand McNally US Road Atlas or give me death!

3

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · Aug 4

He can ask the cash cab questions

1 1

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · Jun 20

Competitive rates!

2

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · Jun 20

1 2

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · Jun 8

If we’re being honest, straw is the best roofing material of the three. The pig appreciates the risks of damp

1 2

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · Jun 5

Curtis?

1 1

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · May 28

We didn’t look at that specifically, but it’s an interesting question for further research! My hunch is that experience is still a benefit even when pivoting. Other work on the “Matthew effect” suggests it’s hard to break into science at all. Thanks for the comment!

1 1

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · May 28

Here's the link to the full article: www.nature.com/articles/s41...

The pivot penalty in research - Nature

An analysis of millions of scientific papers and patents reveals a ‘pivot penalty’ when researchers shift direction, with the impact of studies decreasing rapidly the further they move from their prev...

www.nature.com

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · May 28

Thanks to great co-authors @yianyin.bsky.social, Carolyn Stein, Xizhao Wang, @dashunwang.bsky.social, and Ben Jones. It was a long time coming!

1 1

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · May 28

Very excited for our new publication in @nature.com about the difficulty of pivoting in science. In some sense, this project was my own "pivot" to engage more with a general science audience for the first time. Its really gratifying to see it in print.

Nature @nature.com · May 28

Shifting to a different research field can have negative consequences for a scientist

https://go.nature.com/43xMNEn

The ‘pivot penalty’: scientists get cited less after switching fields, analysis finds

Massive study of nearly 26 million research papers measures the consequences of striking out in another research area.

go.nature.com

2 2 6

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · May 17

Dandelion infestations in suburban yards as a leading indicator for recession

2

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · May 16

@caseynewton.bsky.social @kevinroose.com Could be a good one to cover on Hard Fork

3

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · May 16

The whisper network remains influential and necessary

1 6

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · May 16

This case in particular is a reminder that "proprietary data" and "anonymous partners" can occasionally be permitted for social science research, but should raise additional layers of scrutiny in the peer review process

1 3 11

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · May 16

With the excitement (delirium?) surrounding the rise of AI, it's more important than ever that scientists and journalists maintain an attitude of skepticism and dispassion about new findings as they arrive
www.wsj.com/tech/ai/mit-...

MIT Says It No Longer Stands Behind Student’s AI Research Paper

The university said it has no confidence in a widely circulated paper by an economics graduate student.

www.wsj.com

4 13 38

Ryan Hill @ryanreedhill.bsky.social · May 16

It just all seemed way too good to be true. I've had a number of skeptical conversations about this paper with other folks working in the area. We hesitated to publicly question the paper because he's a grad student and it wasn't peer reviewed yet. Glad the proper channels were followed to fix it.

1 12