@leonardo-puleo.bsky.social
Postdoc at CEVIPOL - Université Libre de Bruxelles | Researching on challenger parties, voting behaviour and illiberal ideas
The Guardian gets it. The real importance of Orban's visit to see Trump was getting financial backing for Orban's tough upcoming election campaign. And all indications are he got it. www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
13.11.2025 06:54 — 👍 54 🔁 24 💬 0 📌 3
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.
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/...
Our friend @rrresrobot.bsky.social has finally broken the chains that tied it to evil Elon #farright #radicalright #research
11.11.2025 00:20 — 👍 25 🔁 7 💬 0 📌 0
🎤 With @sldelange.bsky.social in @theguardian.com on the Dutch election outcome: www.theguardian.com/world/2025/o...
31.10.2025 06:39 — 👍 46 🔁 23 💬 1 📌 1
Proud of this collective effort and grateful to everyone involved. If you’re interested in democracy, courts, or illiberalism, I hope you’ll enjoy reading it!
www.bloomsbury.com/us/dissensus...
/END
Finally, Andrew Bradley wraps up with key takeaways & practical ideas to strengthen judicial independence in Europe. We hope this volume serves scholars, practitioners & engaged citizens interested in how judges perceive & resist executive aggrandisement. 7/N
31.10.2025 09:41 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0The book concludes with contributions by the crème de la crème of scholars @gabor-halmai51.bsky.social, Lisa Conant, Agnieszka Kubal, @tommasopavone.bsky.social , @katarinasipulova.bsky.social & Ramona Coman — who use our interviews to push forward debates on judicial politics & democratic decline.
31.10.2025 09:41 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0In a chapter, I’ve tried to provide some coordinates for the debate on contemporary illiberalism, discussing the dynamics of the illiberal supply and the fascination that these political recipes exercise on European citizenries. 5/N
31.10.2025 09:41 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0In addition, a series of chapters helps contextualise the academic debates on the role of judges in defending liberal democracy (by Ramona Coman) and on the essence of judicial independence (by Viktor Kazai). 4/N
31.10.2025 09:41 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0We bring together voices of those who’ve lived through democratic collapse, and others witnessing a gradual erosion of judicial independence & democratic quality in their own countries. 3/N
31.10.2025 09:41 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0The book amplifies the voices of actors on the frontline of Europe’s conflicts over liberal democracy — namely, European judges and prosecutors. It includes 18 interviews exploring their hopes and fears about the erosion of liberal guarantees and judicial independence across and beyond the EU. 2/N
31.10.2025 09:41 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0
💫Second great news of the day
The book “Dissensus over Liberal Democracy: Insights from European Judges” is finally out with
@bloomsburyacad.bsky.social @hartpublishing.bsky.social
I’m truly happy to have co-edited this volume with Ramona Coman, Viktor Kazai, and Andrew Bradley.
A thread 🧵 1/N
🚀 If you’re working on similar stuff, drop me a PM!
31.10.2025 09:09 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0🚀🚀🚀 First time posting here! I’m happy to share that I’ve just started a new FNRS-funded project at ULB (CEVIPOL/IEE): Party-Based Illiberalism in Europe. Over the next three years, I’ll study how illiberal ideas and practices spread across party systems and citizenry. @sciencepoulb.bsky.social
31.10.2025 09:09 — 👍 12 🔁 1 💬 2 📌 0
