Janne Pölönen

Classification des contextes de citation : la dimension sémantique,... 1. Une introduction à la citation et au contexte de citation La citation est un objet de recherche particulièrement intéressant car il a fédéré très tôt des travaux multidisciplinaires, théoriques ...

Heureuse de partager mon dernier article : “Classification des contextes de citation : la dimension sémantique, entre enjeux de recherche d’information et stratégies industrielles. ”. Merci au comité éditorial de la revue et aux reviewers pour leurs travail. journals.openedition.org/edc/19293

Raporttini akateemisen vapauden tilasta Suomessa julkaistiin tänään. Se pohjautuu tutkijoille ja opettajille tehtyyn kyselyyn. Raportin loppuun kehittelin oman tulkintani siitä, mitkä kaikki tekijät vapautta uhkaavat. Tein siitä tällaisen kuvan. edition.fi/tsv/catalog/...

New resources to advance #DiamondOA in Africa, Europe, and Latin America!

✅Scoping Report on Non-for-profit Publishing Ecosystems
✅Landscape Report on Diamond OA Publishing
✅Advocacy Materials: talking points, videoclips and organisation guide for online events.

Find resources: u2l.fr/9qt8bo

Open Science NL is funding 27 replication studies with €5.2M. Projects will reanalyse data, repeat experiments, and explore variations across many fields. Read more 👉 www.openscience.nl/en/news/27-s...

🎉The inaugural webinar of the Discussion Series on Scholar-led Publishing was today and it was perfect!

🙏Thank you to the 3 speakers and participants.

👀To see an overview of the presentations, expand the thread.

Thank you @almasiproject.bsky.social for this webinar to connect with the ALMASI (Aligning and Mutualizing Nonprofit #OpenAccess Publishing Services Internationally) community and the discussion on why #DiamondOpenAccess matters for reclaiming knowledge!

Learn more about ALMASI: almasiproject.org

Next on stage Milda Baltrimienė podering abt #multilingualism in research. #HelsinkiInitiative is one fine initiative, but it has some cons, too. Ahoy @jpolonen.bsky.social Milda's abstract: doi.org/10.7557/5.8164

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/...

📢 Register for the 5th Helsinki Initiative webinar (8 December) on Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication with presentations by @tatsuya-amano.bsky.social, @karenstroobants.bsky.social and Andre Brasil!

More information and registration: www.helsinki-initiative.org/en/events/5t...

Amplifying global voices: Removing language barriers in academic conferences We invite you to share your experiences with language barriers at academic conferences. Your insights will help shape more inclusive and multilingual events across disciplines and formats. This surve...

🌍 Have you experienced language barriers at academic conferences, or not at all?

We want to hear from everyone to better understand how language shapes participation and accessibility.

📝 Take our short survey and help make conferences more inclusive and multilingual:

forms.gle/u8ESktcJP8Y6...

Special Seminar: Perspectives on the evaluation of science We are delighted to host a special seminar featuring the members of Eleonora Dagiene’s external PhD committee, held the day after her PhD defence. This session will bring together three distinguished ...

📣 Special seminar on 'Perspectives on the evaluation of science', with Emanuel Kulczycki, @alesiazuccala557.bsky.social, and Jochen Gläser.

🎧 Make sure to join!

📅 Friday, 31.10.2025
🕐 1:00-3:00 PM (CET)
📌 Online & at CWTS

More information 👉 www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/events/20...

Visual image to promote the ALMASI Diamond OA Policy Forum Wednesday 29 October

🌍💎 Bringing together #OpenAccess policymakers & funders across Africa, Europe, and Latin America is key to supporting #DiamondOA
@almasiproject.bsky.social launches The Diamond OA Policy Forum on 29 October 2025, 15:00-16:30 UTC
Register here: almasiproject.org/the-diamond-...

How much are LLMs changing the language of academic papers after ChatGPT? A multi-database and full text analysis This study investigates how Large Language Models (LLMs) are influencing the language of academic papers by tracking 12 LLM-associated terms across six major scholarly databases (Scopus, Web of Scienc...

"Across databases, delve (+1,500%), underscore (+1,000%), and intricate (+700%) had the largest increases between 2022 and 2024. Growth in LLM-term usage was much higher in STEM fields than in social sciences and arts and humanities" arxiv.org/abs/2509.09596

A promotional image featuring the logo of the European University Association for the briefing: "Reclaiming academic ownership of the scholarly communication system: Challenges and opportunities for universities." The background is a blue overlay.

Research assessment reform is essential to break the cycle of dependence on high-impact commercial journals and related metrics.
➡️ Reclaiming academic ownership of the #ScholarlyCommunication system buff.ly/0C0Wqfn

#OpenScience

→ Plaidoyer pour le multilinguisme en sciences

📚 Article à lire : @bowkerl.bsky.social, Mikael Laakso & @jpolonen.bsky.social explorent les risques liés au monolinguisme anglophone sur l’écosystème scientifique.

📌 L'article : id.erudit.org/iderudit/111...
📌 Résumé de l'article : shorturl.at/nKGgo

The July 2025 dump of OpenCitations Index is out! Now featuring 2.21 BILLION citations from 5 data sources.

👉 download.opencitations.net

Ever wondered how these sources overlap? This chart shows where citations are shared and where they're unique:

Mapping the publisher types and collaborations behind Web of Science indexed journals Abstract. Although the organisational aspects of scholarly journals—such as the types of organisations responsible for publishing individual journals, whether independently or in collaboration—have si...

74.4% of the 21,886 WoS-indexed journals involve commercial professional publishers, 29% societies, and 27.8% research organisations as sole/co-publishers. Our paper co-authored with @zehrataskin.bsky.social, Emanuel Kulczycki & @mikaellaakso.bsky.social - now on QSS website: doi.org/10.1162/qss....

Significant differences between European countries in the higher education institution's engagement with #CoARA, #HRS4R @dorassessment.bsky.social. This and other findings in my presentation at the CoARA General Assembly 23 June on CoARA Uptake across European HEIs: doi.org/10.5281/zeno...

Happy to announce the soft launch of DoLS - the Directory of Learned Societies, an open, growing database of learned societies and their journals worldwide, facilitating visibility, networking, and community-building!

Explore #DoLS website: www.tsv.fi/en/services/...

Significant differences between European countries in the higher education institution's engagement with #CoARA, #HRS4R @dorassessment.bsky.social. This and other findings in my presentation at the CoARA General Assembly 23 June on CoARA Uptake across European HEIs: doi.org/10.5281/zeno...

This interesting new preprint on SocArXiv shows that "The landscape of academic journals is beyond the oligopoly: it is diverse and often grounded in public, academic-driven initiatives rather than market imperatives." osf.io/preprints/so...

📢 Our new study challenges the prevailing narrative that a few commercial publishers dominate global scholarly publishing! Read the preprint: Beyond the oligopoly: Scholarly journal publishing landscapes in Latin America and Europe. doi.org/10.31235/osf...

Glad to see this report about 'reclaiming academic ownership of scholarly communication system'.

I like presentation of diamond OA and publish-review-curate (PRC) as complementary approaches. Important to note that PRC is not only about reclaiming ownership but also about various other issues.

Reclaiming academic ownership of the scholarly communication system EUA - European University Association

📖 What are the main factors shaping the current academic publishing system?
🚧 What key challenges does the academic community face?
🔍 Are there opportunities for universities to reshape the future of #ScholarlyCommunication?
🔗 New EUA briefing buff.ly/0C0Wqfn

#AcademicSky #EduSky

DIAMAS releases Diamond Open Access Recommendations and Guidelines EUA - European University Association

💎 📖 #Diamas project releases #DiamondOA Recommendations and Guidelines
for Institutions, Funders, Sponsors, Donors, and Policymakers.
ℹ️ buff.ly/bwSeFJL

#OpenAccess #ScholarlyPublishing #OpenScience #SciencePolicy @eudch.bsky.social‬

How universities can protect and promote academic freedom EUA - European University Association

Universities and their communities play an essential role in protecting and promoting academic freedom. 🛡️ 🤲 They must commit to making academic freedom a lived and daily reality.

Read EUA's position paper buff.ly/35qwaif

#AcademicFreedom

JOSS re-evaluated as JUFO 1 in Finland, expands its definition - Nordic RSE We bring together the community of people writing and contributing to research software from Nordic universities, research institutes, companies and other organizations to share knowledge, to organize...

It's great to see that a national research evaluation organization, the Finnish Publication Forum (JUFO), has rated @joss-openjournals.bsky.social as level 1, recognizing its scholarly value

Frankie Robertson helped make this happen, with Nordic-RSE, & wrote about it: nordic-rse.org/blog/joss-ju...

@polecopub.bsky.social presenting #Matilda as a new source for Open Citations at #WOOC2025 in Bologna

📢 Webinaari 11.6. klo 10:00-11:30: Yliopistojen, AMKien ja tutkimuslaitosten näkemyksiä tutkimuksen yhteiskunnallisen vaikuttavuuden arvioinnista sekä Alankomaiden, Norjan, Puolan ja UK:n arviointijärjestelmien vertailu.

Ilmoittautuminen ja lisätietoa: www.julkaisufoorumi.fi/fi/tapahtuma...

Thank you Pablo for the great contribution and discussion @RESSH2025!