Robert Kiley

Such sad news.

I have many fond memories of talking about open access and open data with Phil when he was at the NIH.

AI Hallucinations in Research: What They Are & How to Stop Why do AI tools make up citations? Learn causes, real examples (ChatGPT: 55%, Elicit: 17-33%), and how INRA's validation prevents fabricated references.

You might find this helpful

www.inra.ai/blog/ai-hall...

Career effects of preprints get mixed reviews from biomedical researchers Junior researchers are more likely to embrace preprints; grant reviewers and hiring committees express doubts

#preprints are seen as accelerating science – but do they accelerate #researchcareers? @science.org @sciencecareers.bsky.social #scientificpublishing #scicomm
www.science.org/content/arti...

COAR Notify and the Launch of a Publish, Review, Curate Alliance (via @coar-repositories.bsky.social) coar-repositories.org/news-updates... #scholcomm #repositories #libraries #oa

ICYMI NIH’s Proposed Caps on Open-Access #Publishing Fees Roil Scientific Community (via @science.org) www.science.org/content/arti... #scholcomm #oa

UK university sector reaches deals with four major publishers - Research Professional News Elsevier, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis and Wiley meet “sector-agreed thresholds” in long-running talks

"There has been pressure from universities for the new agreements to make further progress away from traditional subscription models of publishing and towards open access"

#AcademicPublishing
#OpenAccess
#KnowledgeShare

share.google/7sI8E7bV4ZuH...

Springer Nature retracts, removes nearly 40 publications The dataset contains images of children’s faces downloaded from websites about autism, which sparked concerns at Springer Nature about consent and reliability.

Springer Nature retracting papers based on bonkers dataset
www.thetransmitter.org/retraction/e... Good. #autism

Reimagining scholarly publishing: outcomes from a public forum to discuss the Publish, Review, Curate publishing model Photo: PRC supporters’ workshop At a meeting held on the 3rd December 2025 at Kings College, Cambridge over 50 delegates, comprising researchers, publishers, librarians, research funders and …

Summary of recent meeting to discuss the Publish, Review, Curate (PRC) publishing model.

To build on this momentum @coar-repositories.bsky.social & @asapbio.bsky.social will convene a working group to explore establishing a PRC Alliance

coar-repositories.org/news-updates...

#scientificpublishing

Publish, Review, Curate: Turning scholarly publishing on its head Tired of long delays, expensive fees, and a lack of transparency about editorial decisions when publishing your articles? Join us at King’s College, Cambridge on December 3rd for an in-depth …

Our public forum at University of Cambridge is officially *sold out* Looking forward to interesting discussions around the future of publishing with @ludowaltman.bsky.social and others @peercommunityin.bsky.social @elife.bsky.social @metaror.bsky.social - coar-repositories.org/news-updates...

"... the recent deployment of open scholarship to train large language models has led to disquiet among both open-access advocates and detractors."

#ScholComm #Research #Scholarship #AI #LLMs #Copyright #UnintendedConsequences

After Coalition S disrupted scientific publishing, new plan retreats from strict requirements The group’s latest strategy emphasizes consultation, lacks spending pledges

A sequel to #Plan_S -- the carrot, not the stick. Will that approach improve what ails #scientificpublishing? #ScholarlyComm #openaccess @science.org www.science.org/content/arti...

Reformation of science publishing: the Stockholm Declaration | Royal Society Open Science Science relies on integrity and trustworthiness. But scientists under career pressure are lured to purchase fake publications from ‘paper mills’ that use AI-generated data, text and image fabrication....

Newly released Stockholm Declaration recommends the following reforms to publishing:

1. Academia resumes control of publishing

2. Incentive systems to merit quality, not quantity

3. Independent fraud detection and prevention

4. Legislation and policies to protect science quality and integrity

Should publishers charge authors fees for exercising a right they already have? Here’s why the new fees from IEEE & @acs.org miss the mark and what could replace them.
By @bodorama.bsky.social & @rachelbruce.bsky.social

www.coalition-s.org/blog/yes-to-...

#OpenAccess #OAweek #ScholComm

Martin, sorry to hear this. Hope you soon feel better.

Nature’s decision to publish positive peer review reports only gives half the picture - Impact of Social Sciences As the journal Nature moves to publish peer review reports for accepted papers, Bodo Stern argues this partial openness falls short of true transparency.

👀 ICYMI: "in today’s rapidly changing landscape of scientific communication, the decision feels less like a visionary leap and more like an uninspired nod to the status quo"

#Nature #PeerReview #ScholComm

NIH details options for limiting its payments for open-access publishing fees Other publishing proposals would scrap reimbursements or pay peer reviewers, unprecedented steps for a major government funder

Can authors afford APCs for #openaccess publishing if NIH caps its payments for them? Institutional read-and-publish deals offer an APC-free alternative, but NIH also wants to lower the indirect cost rate to 15%, which could squeeze money for such deals. @science.org www.science.org/content/arti...

New publishing models will only work if authors embrace them Complaints about the broken academic publishing system have been around for years and are getting louder. A common theme is that with the r...

Here's a quick blogpost about alternative publishing models. You can bring a horse to water, and indeed wave the bucket temptingly under its nose, but it is likely to gallop off elsewhere. deevybee.blogspot.com/2025/07/new-...
@ec.europa.eu @wellcometrust.bsky.social

We must break the link between publisher revenue and article volume Volume-driven publishing pushes up costs and threatens research integrity. We need new agreements with healthier incentives, says Anna Vernon

1️⃣ From @timeshighered.bsky.social: The UK is calling for a fundamental shift in how to fund & structure #AcademicPublishing, breaking the link between publisher profits & article volume. A powerful case for thinking #OpenAccess at scale

🔗Read more: shorturl.at/PbFRi

Quality of scientific papers questioned as academics ‘overwhelmed’ by the millions published New study reveals concerns over scientific paper quality due to overwhelming publication volume. A ...

New study reveals concerns over scientific paper quality due to overwhelming publication volume. A retracted paper with AI-generated errors highlights the issue. Royal Society to review publishing. #ScientificPublishing #News

After a successful period leading our strategic direction, @rkiley.bsky.social concludes his role as cOAlition S Head of Strategy in June.
📰 www.coalition-s.org/coalition-s-...

Around 82% of research attributed to a cOAlition S funder is published open access; the comparable global OA figure is 53%

📙The @coalitions-oa.bsky.social Annual Review 2024 is out, providing an overview of policy progress, tools, services, and ongoing initiatives that aim to make scholarly communication more open and accessible.
Read it here: 🔓 www.coalition-s.org/plan-s-annua...
#Plan_S #OpenAccess #scholcomm

How Equitable Is It? A framework for assessing scholarly communication models on the axis of equity. Developed by the “Beyond article-based charges” working group, which is convened by cOAlition S, Jisc and PLOS.

📢 Just released: Updated "How Equitable Is It?" tool with clearer definitions for assessing #equity in #ScholComm models.

👉 coalitions.typeform.com/Equity-Tool

📰 www.coalition-s.org/updated-vers...

By the beyond article-based charges working group,
cOAlition S, @jisc.bsky.social, @plos.org

openRxiv has arrived!

We’re thrilled to announce the launch of openRxiv as an independent, researcher-led nonprofit to oversee bioRxiv and medRxiv, the world’s leading preprint servers for life and health sciences.
openrxiv.org/introducing-...

#openRxiv #OpenScience #Preprints #bioRxiv #medRxiv

Elon Musk is a proven danger to good science, but the Royal Society won’t say so. That’s why I resigned | Kit Yates It is vital to act, and I urge colleagues to do so. How can we stand by and laud this man while he undermines scientific integrity? asks academic and author Kit Yates

“I will be resigning my position as associate editor at the Royal Society’s journal Open Science with immediate effect. I will no longer submit my research to Royal Society journals or act as a peer reviewer for them. I would urge my colleagues to do the same”

www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

PLOS statement on recent US Executive Orders and scientific integrity - The Official PLOS Blog Since its founding over twenty five years ago PLOS has been dedicated to advancing open science, ensuring that knowledge is accessible to…

PLOS statement on recent US Executive Orders and scientific integrity

theplosblog.plos.org/2025/02/plos...

#scientificpublishing

Update. From @hildabast: "What if We Can’t Rely on PubMed?"
https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/2025/02/14/what-if-we-cant-rely-on-pubmed/

"#PubMed is incredibly reliable…That said, between the risks of an exodus of key personnel, understaffing, or goodness-knows-what vandalism when a goon squad […]

Seven reasons for keeping Elon Musk as a Fellow of the Royal Society Last November, I wrote a blogpost explaining why I had resigned as a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS). In brief, over the summer a group ...

Latest blogpost on Musk/Royal Society debacle: deevybee.blogspot.com/2025/02/seve... I look at the reasons that have been given for inaction, and find them wanting. @royalsociety.org

@coalitions-oa.bsky.social

Thanks. Has this event happened? I can just see an image, which isn’t clickable.