Prachee Avasthi

Scholarly Communication Is a Research Problem. This Means You. Scholarly Communication Is a Research Problem.

New Blog Post:
Scholarly Communication Is a Research Problem. This Means You.

pracheeac.substack.com/p/scholarly-...

Scholarly Communication Is a Research Problem. This Means You. Scholarly Communication Is a Research Problem.

New Blog Post:
Scholarly Communication Is a Research Problem. This Means You.

pracheeac.substack.com/p/scholarly-...

😂 love it

Yes why would anyone at a frontier research lab know anything about this topic. I guess uninformed takes by people not working on anything related are usually more useful

Suit yourself

A serious and useful thread with permission to take AGI seriously by @jascha.sohldickstein.com over at X

x.com/jaschasd/sta...

Sometimes I wonder if you have a spreadsheet with various of your threads/arguments for when you need to surface one of them every 2 days

Ordered a shirt that reminds me unambiguously of @richardsever.bsky.social 😂

Open letter to HHMI on their Immediate Access to Research Policy The following is in response to a letter sent to the HHMI community on September 24, 2025 and refers to HHMI’s new Immediate Access to Research Policy. The original letter appears at the bottom below ...

So @mbeisen.bsky.social and I wrote this not just to sway HHMI to stop walking the tightrope to make all parties comfortable and be clear about their trajectory but because it’s in all scientist’s hands to decide what they want to do open.substack.com/pub/thescien...

Open letter to HHMI on their Immediate Access to Research Policy The following is in response to a letter sent to the HHMI community on September 24, 2025 and refers to HHMI’s new Immediate Access to Research Policy. The original letter appears at the bottom below ...

thescientistpapers.substack.com/p/open-lette...

Right now is the best chance the scientific community has ever had to end the artificial scarcity of academic journals.
1/

Opinion | Academic Publishing Has Become a Racket Scientists write and review papers without getting paid, and their institutions have to pay for access.

The last day for public comment on this topic is Monday, Sept 15. It’s time to unleash science.
3/3

Gift link to op-ed: www.wsj.com/opinion/acad...

NIH Request for Information: grants.nih.gov/grants/guide...

Check out my new op-ed urging NIH to disallow taxpayer dollars towards journal publication fees — something both publishers and scientists have played a role in perpetuating.
2/

Right now is the best chance the scientific community has ever had to end the artificial scarcity of academic journals.
1/

Some other considerations that can help:
- technology continues to evolve to facilitate
- better authentication practices
- stronger metadata
- increased connectivity and improved reporting of research/data artifacts upon which papers are based

Yeah definitely it’s problematic but journals & their infinite predatory clones aren’t really solving it. All the more reason to double down on our own scientific judgment & practices than assuming we can trust anyone to tame the fire hose for us

Thanks Bob!

This! Many people have expert opinions about their specific interest in a paper just from reading it that would be helpful. It needn’t be comprehensive to be exceptionally helpful, especially since people’s expertise can rarely cover the joint expertise of increasingly collaborative work anyway

There are a lot of reasons for that that I think need to be fixed to make the comments more discoverable to readers and authors alike

Sure this is important but there can be legit reasons for this too. Like the new version doesn’t even contain the part relevant to the critique. And luckily all those versions and associated relevant critiques are accessible

I don’t think it’s obvious and feel quite the opposite. Also they’re changing whether we ask for it or not. NIH has already said they’re capping fees. It’s better to be ready

The moment to fix science has arrived American science is reeling amidst a barrage of grant cancellations, funding delays, attacks on leading universities, cuts in Federal research staff, and the general devaluation of scientific expertis...

And ICYMI, our previous post was about how the best time to fix science was long ago, but the second best time is now

thescientistpapers.substack.com/p/the-moment...

How to be a scientist in a post-journal world When we created this site to write about things in science that need to be fixed, we chose not to start with publishing, even though it has been our preoccupation for decades.

Check out the latest from Mike and I on how to be a scientist in a post-journal world
9/9

thescientistpapers.substack.com/p/how-to-be-...

Turns out scientists already have the ideal toolkit and something much better is possible when we’re not constrained by the impossibly low ceiling of journal aspirations.
8/

Hoping our experience can help others see they are more ready for this change than they realize, today we outline what it looks like to publish, discover, and evaluate science/scientists in a post-journal world.
7/

And once you start to actually operate without leaning on gatekeepers and tastemakers, it becomes hard to fathom being held back in this way.
6/

@mbeisen.bsky.social and I have already been operating without journal proxies throughout our careers and, tbh, every aspect of it is better. Both the experience of doing science and the potential outcomes for science.
5/

To those who thought things would never change, it might feel pretty unnerving to not know how the many aspects of science currently dependent on journals can function well without them.
4/

This isn’t just some distant fantasy given that the NIH, the largest public funder of science in the world, is now looking to cap journal publication fees for NIH-funded research. A critical destabilization of this anachronistic system is imminent. FINALLY.
3/

The confluence of rapid technological progress, growing realities of poor scalability, and reduced tolerance by funders for journal inefficiencies has made our current path untenable.
2/