Mark A. Hanson
LightNews LightNews
banner
hansonmark.bsky.social
Mark A. Hanson
@hansonmark.bsky.social
7K followers 1.1K following 1.9K posts
New PI interested in #immune #evolution, host #pathogen interactions, and #ScientificPublishing @ University of Exeter, UK. He/him. 🇨🇦

Want to support my scientific publishing work? Buy me a coffee: https://ko-fi.com/insectpathogenlab/tip
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
hansonmark.bsky.social
Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · Nov 11
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/...
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.
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
nick-pettigrew.bsky.social
I'm convinced AI is our generation's radium - a discovery with genuinely useful applications in specific, controlled circumstances that we stupidly put in everything from kid's toys to toothpaste until we realised the harm far too late where future generations will ask if we were out of our minds.
dancow.bsky.social Dan Nguyen @dancow.bsky.social · 1d
VC, founder, dumbass
@Nick_Davidov Asked Claude Cowork organize my wife's desktop, it stated doing it, asked for a permission to delete temp office files, I granted it, and then it goes "ooops" Turns out it tried renaming and accidentally deleted a folder with all of the photos my wife made on her camera for the last 15 years. All photos of kids, their illustrations, friends' weddings, travel, everything. It's not in trash, it was done via terminal It's not in iCloud, it already synced the new file structure. She didn't have Time Machine. Disc recovery tools can't see anything. I called Apple and they pointed me to a feature in iCloud allowing to retrieve files that were saved before but are no longer on iCloud Drive (they keep them for 30 days). I'm now watching it load tens of thousands of files. I nearly had a heart attack. Nick Davidov • @Nick_Davidov VC, founder, DVC.ai - backing repeat founders with a community of 200 engineers. e/acc/OSS. Perplexity, Higgsfield, Animation, Etched. Husband to @msdavidova
February 8, 2026 at 10:23 PM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
phylogenomics.bsky.social
Reading and really liking this #openaccess paper by Ary Hoffman and @brandonscooper.bsky.social

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....

Describing endosymbiont–host interactions within the parasitism–mutualism continuum
Describing endosymbiont–host interactions within the parasitism–mutualism continuum
Bacteria that live inside the cells of arthropod hosts (“endosymbionts”) are gaining increasing interest as targets for pest control and for reducing the ability of arthropod vectors to transmit anim....
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
February 8, 2026 at 1:08 AM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
phylogenomics.bsky.social
"A recent example is the term “hologenome” that forces the genomes of the host and associated microbes into a single genomic unit. As clearly noted by others, this term and broader framework may add little more than confusion to the field (Douglas & Werren, 2016; Moran & Sloan, 2015)."
February 8, 2026 at 2:33 AM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
aufdroeseler.bsky.social
Apparently, there is still funding left in academia even though Springer Nature made $489 million profits off of it in 2024. And now they are telling researchers what great news that is.

Let me fix this for you... (inspired by arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820)
#springernature #closedscience
Screenshot of springernature journal page saying "great news! fundign is available for open access publishing. Explore open access funding | change institution." Table with profit margins from big publishers of research Sad news! By choosing to publish with us, you are wasting a horrendous amount of tax money. Learn about Diamond Open Access and where to submit instead Buy yourself prestige here -->
February 6, 2026 at 1:47 PM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
elife.bsky.social
Incentives are skewed in research publishing. eLife looks for better ways to share and assess research and researchers by focusing on public peer reviews and eLife Assessments rather than publishing decisions.
buff.ly/WfmVvbP

Interview with Erdem Pulcu at @oxfordpsychiatry.bsky.social
February 7, 2026 at 11:01 AM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
edanfoley.bsky.social
Our EMBO workshop is now live. Visit us in Bath this summer for a two week workshop designed to help you study host-microbe interactions in the zebrafish, and develop the bioinformatics skills needed to analyse the complex data sets that arise from microbiomic studies.
Computational and experimental microbiomics
The critical contribution of microbiota to animal, plant and environmental health is now widely accepted. Progress has been driven by two parallel approaches: in silico analyses of large -omics data …
meetings.embo.org
February 6, 2026 at 2:51 PM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
wimpouw.bsky.social
@markhanson.fediscience.org.ap.brid.gy on the drain and strain of publishging: "After plan S and gold open access, journals changed their business model... Now your marketing to the authors not the readers, incentivizing volume rather than quality"

#horizondiamond2026
www.horizondiamond.nl
February 5, 2026 at 8:55 AM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
freeourknowledge.bsky.social
Ending slide from Mark Hanson's @hansonmark.bsky.social excellent talk at #horizondiamond2026 with qr to the main papers strain, drain, and PISS paper.

He also concludes "Funders can make diamond competitive".

#horizondiamond2026
Ending slide from Mark Hanson's talk at #horizondiamond2026 with qr to the main papers strain, drain, and PISS paper
February 5, 2026 at 9:33 AM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
hansonmark.bsky.social
Some v useful clarifications. Thanks for this summary @mjafreeman.bsky.social !
mjafreeman.bsky.social Matthew Freeman @mjafreeman.bsky.social · 6d
I watched much of Ian Chapman's (Head of @ukri.org) appearance this morning at @ukparliament.parliament.uk Science, Innovation and Technology Committee..

A few points and new information that bioscientists may find interesting...

A 🧵
February 3, 2026 at 6:09 PM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
takashiakeralab.bsky.social
vilcek.org/news/breakin...
Breaking Fundamental Biological Law: Research by Takashi Akera Investigates Selfish DNA - Vilcek Foundation
Winner of the Vilcek Prize for Creative Promise, Akera’s novel research findings have huge implications for infertility and chromosomal disorders.
vilcek.org
February 3, 2026 at 5:06 AM
hansonmark.bsky.social
Well said!
eicathomefinn.bsky.social Margot Finn @eicathomefinn.bsky.social · 6d
'to treat peer review as a throughput problem is to misunderstand what is at stake. Review is not simply a production stage in the research pipeline; it is one of the few remaining spaces where the scientific community talks to itself.' 1/3
AI is not a peer, so it can’t do peer review
If we still believe that science is a vocation grounded in argument, curiosity and care, we can’t delegate judgement to machines, says Akhil Bhardwaj
www.timeshighereducation.com
February 4, 2026 at 7:17 AM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
hansonmark.bsky.social
Could not find all organisers on here, but thanks to @wimpouw.bsky.social @bregtlameris.bsky.social Laurens Kemp, Jos Baeten, Elisabeth Elbers, and Mihaela Cimpian!
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 7d
All set for New Horizons 💎 #OpenAccess in Nijmegen! Thank you to the organisers for the opportunity to speak on the Strain, Stain, & Drain of scientific publishing.

Looking forward to great conversations on moving #ScientificPublishing forward!

bit.ly/StrainQSS
www.horizondiamond.nl#schedule
November 01 2024 The strain on scientific publishing Open Access Mark A. HansonCorresponding Author ORCID logo , Pablo Gómez Barreiro ORCID logo , Paolo Crosetto ORCID logo , Dan Brockington ORCID logo Crossmark: Check for Updates Author and Article Information Quantitative Science Studies (2024) 5 (4): 823–843. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00327 Article history Cite Icon Cite Open the PDFfor in another window Permissions Share Icon Share Views Icon Views Open Menu The Drain of Scientific Publishing Fernanda Beigel, Dan Brockington, Paolo Crosetto, Gemma Derrick, Aileen Fyfe, Pablo Gomez Barreiro, Mark A. Hanson, Stefanie Haustein, Vincent Larivière, Christine Noe, Stephen Pinfield, James Wilsdon The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science. We need the most powerful members of the research community, funders, governments and Universities, to lead the drive to re-communalise publishing to serve science not the market. Comments: 1 Figure, 1 Table, 1 Supplementary Table Subjects: Digital Libraries (cs.DL) Cite as: arXiv:2511.04820 [cs.DL] (or arXiv:2511.04820v2 [cs.DL] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.04820 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Dan Brockington [view email] [v1] Thu, 6 Nov 2025 21:20:22 UTC (2,101 KB) [v2] Mon, 17 Nov 2025 20:05:17 UTC (2,113 KB) The Issue with Special Issues: when Guest Editors Publish in Support of Self Paolo Crosetto1*, Pablo Gómez Barreiro2 , Mark Austin Hanson3* 1. Univ. Grenoble Alpes, INRAE, CNRS, Grenoble INP, GAEL; Grenoble, France 2. Department of Science Operations, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Wakehurst, UK 3. Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter; Penryn, Cornwall, UK * corresponding authors – PC: paolo.crosetto@inrae.fr, MAH: m.hanson@exeter.ac.uk Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) PC: 0000-0002-9153-0159 PGB: 0000-0002-3140-3326 MAH: 0000-0002-6125-3672
February 2, 2026 at 11:08 PM
hansonmark.bsky.social
Some v useful clarifications. Thanks for this summary @mjafreeman.bsky.social !
mjafreeman.bsky.social Matthew Freeman @mjafreeman.bsky.social · 6d
I watched much of Ian Chapman's (Head of @ukri.org) appearance this morning at @ukparliament.parliament.uk Science, Innovation and Technology Committee..

A few points and new information that bioscientists may find interesting...

A 🧵
February 3, 2026 at 6:09 PM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
mjafreeman.bsky.social
I watched much of Ian Chapman's (Head of @ukri.org) appearance this morning at @ukparliament.parliament.uk Science, Innovation and Technology Committee..

A few points and new information that bioscientists may find interesting...

A 🧵
February 3, 2026 at 1:57 PM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
freeourknowledge.bsky.social
The conference on reform in scholarly publishing happening this Thursday and Friday in Nijmegen!

For those on Bluesky lets use this tag: #horizondiamond2026

www.horizondiamond.nl

Were approaching a full house, but last-minute sign ups are welcomed.

#publishing #science #research
February 3, 2026 at 8:30 AM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
justin-randall.bsky.social
Our lab has a new review on beta-hairpin antimicrobial peptide diversity out in @pubs.acs.org as part of the special issue celebrating Robert E. W. Hancock. Please have a look and share!

pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/...
β-Hairpin Antimicrobial Peptides: Class Diversity and Sequence Analysis
Interest in antimicrobial peptides has increased dramatically over the last few decades as researchers continue to explore their potential as alternatives to small molecules, as well as their applicat...
pubs.acs.org
February 2, 2026 at 6:49 PM
hansonmark.bsky.social
Could not find all organisers on here, but thanks to @wimpouw.bsky.social @bregtlameris.bsky.social Laurens Kemp, Jos Baeten, Elisabeth Elbers, and Mihaela Cimpian!
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 7d
All set for New Horizons 💎 #OpenAccess in Nijmegen! Thank you to the organisers for the opportunity to speak on the Strain, Stain, & Drain of scientific publishing.

Looking forward to great conversations on moving #ScientificPublishing forward!

bit.ly/StrainQSS
www.horizondiamond.nl#schedule
November 01 2024 The strain on scientific publishing Open Access Mark A. HansonCorresponding Author ORCID logo , Pablo Gómez Barreiro ORCID logo , Paolo Crosetto ORCID logo , Dan Brockington ORCID logo Crossmark: Check for Updates Author and Article Information Quantitative Science Studies (2024) 5 (4): 823–843. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00327 Article history Cite Icon Cite Open the PDFfor in another window Permissions Share Icon Share Views Icon Views Open Menu The Drain of Scientific Publishing Fernanda Beigel, Dan Brockington, Paolo Crosetto, Gemma Derrick, Aileen Fyfe, Pablo Gomez Barreiro, Mark A. Hanson, Stefanie Haustein, Vincent Larivière, Christine Noe, Stephen Pinfield, James Wilsdon The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science. We need the most powerful members of the research community, funders, governments and Universities, to lead the drive to re-communalise publishing to serve science not the market. Comments: 1 Figure, 1 Table, 1 Supplementary Table Subjects: Digital Libraries (cs.DL) Cite as: arXiv:2511.04820 [cs.DL] (or arXiv:2511.04820v2 [cs.DL] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.04820 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Dan Brockington [view email] [v1] Thu, 6 Nov 2025 21:20:22 UTC (2,101 KB) [v2] Mon, 17 Nov 2025 20:05:17 UTC (2,113 KB) The Issue with Special Issues: when Guest Editors Publish in Support of Self Paolo Crosetto1*, Pablo Gómez Barreiro2 , Mark Austin Hanson3* 1. Univ. Grenoble Alpes, INRAE, CNRS, Grenoble INP, GAEL; Grenoble, France 2. Department of Science Operations, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Wakehurst, UK 3. Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter; Penryn, Cornwall, UK * corresponding authors – PC: paolo.crosetto@inrae.fr, MAH: m.hanson@exeter.ac.uk Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) PC: 0000-0002-9153-0159 PGB: 0000-0002-3140-3326 MAH: 0000-0002-6125-3672
February 2, 2026 at 11:08 PM
hansonmark.bsky.social
All set for New Horizons 💎 #OpenAccess in Nijmegen! Thank you to the organisers for the opportunity to speak on the Strain, Stain, & Drain of scientific publishing.

Looking forward to great conversations on moving #ScientificPublishing forward!

bit.ly/StrainQSS
www.horizondiamond.nl#schedule
November 01 2024 The strain on scientific publishing Open Access Mark A. HansonCorresponding Author ORCID logo , Pablo Gómez Barreiro ORCID logo , Paolo Crosetto ORCID logo , Dan Brockington ORCID logo Crossmark: Check for Updates Author and Article Information Quantitative Science Studies (2024) 5 (4): 823–843. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00327 Article history Cite Icon Cite Open the PDFfor in another window Permissions Share Icon Share Views Icon Views Open Menu The Drain of Scientific Publishing Fernanda Beigel, Dan Brockington, Paolo Crosetto, Gemma Derrick, Aileen Fyfe, Pablo Gomez Barreiro, Mark A. Hanson, Stefanie Haustein, Vincent Larivière, Christine Noe, Stephen Pinfield, James Wilsdon The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science. We need the most powerful members of the research community, funders, governments and Universities, to lead the drive to re-communalise publishing to serve science not the market. Comments: 1 Figure, 1 Table, 1 Supplementary Table Subjects: Digital Libraries (cs.DL) Cite as: arXiv:2511.04820 [cs.DL] (or arXiv:2511.04820v2 [cs.DL] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.04820 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Dan Brockington [view email] [v1] Thu, 6 Nov 2025 21:20:22 UTC (2,101 KB) [v2] Mon, 17 Nov 2025 20:05:17 UTC (2,113 KB) The Issue with Special Issues: when Guest Editors Publish in Support of Self Paolo Crosetto1*, Pablo Gómez Barreiro2 , Mark Austin Hanson3* 1. Univ. Grenoble Alpes, INRAE, CNRS, Grenoble INP, GAEL; Grenoble, France 2. Department of Science Operations, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Wakehurst, UK 3. Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter; Penryn, Cornwall, UK * corresponding authors – PC: paolo.crosetto@inrae.fr, MAH: m.hanson@exeter.ac.uk Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) PC: 0000-0002-9153-0159 PGB: 0000-0002-3140-3326 MAH: 0000-0002-6125-3672
February 2, 2026 at 11:04 PM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
giorgio.gilest.ro
1 budget for 26-30 is rising 🎉
2 quota for basic research stable 🙂

BUT

3 we're slashing success rate for currently assessed grants 🫠
4 next call hopefully in Apri 2027 (with £s for lucky few going out months later, suppose) 💀

How does this make us more competitive?

www.ukri.org/news/open-le...
Open letter from Ian Chapman to research and innovation community
UKRI Chief Executive outlines changes to UKRI investment approach, addressing concerns about research funding and the financial position of STFC.
www.ukri.org
February 2, 2026 at 8:49 AM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
selinawray.bsky.social
The pause of response mode funding will have a huge impact on ECRs who are not yet fellowship ready.When researchers leave academia they rarely return. Clarity on when RM will reopen is urgently needed & transitions to the new model need to avoid investment gaps that disproportionally affect ECRs
pssalgado.bsky.social Prof Paula Salgado @pssalgado.bsky.social · 8d
Open letter to the R&I community by @ukri.org CEO Ian Chapman:
www.ukri.org/news/open-le...

Reassuring to know that curiosity-driven research is protected over 4y *but* does not address concerns regarding the huge impact of the current pauses at MRC, BBSRC, EPSRC #UKsciencefundingcrisis
Open letter from Ian Chapman to research and innovation community
UKRI Chief Executive outlines changes to UKRI investment approach, addressing concerns about research funding and the financial position of STFC.
www.ukri.org
February 1, 2026 at 6:31 PM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
kirstygrainger.bsky.social
bsky.app/profile/kirs...
kirstygrainger.bsky.social Kirsty Grainger @kirstygrainger.bsky.social · 8d
Some initial reactions to the 'published on a Sunday afternoon' letter from the CEO of UKRI. 🧵

www.ukri.org/news/open-le...
February 1, 2026 at 8:47 PM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
xingxingshen.bsky.social
Excited to share a new piece of work in @embojournal.org

Parasitoid wasps hijack a bacterial gene that governs venoms against host. Coauthors include @rokaslab.bsky.social and others.

Read more from: link.springer.com/article/10.1...
A bacterial gene acquired by parasitoid wasps contributes to venom secretion against host defence - The EMBO Journal
Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is an important source of gene innovation in prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms. Several genes acquired by hosts of parasitoid wasps via HGT have been reported to prot...
link.springer.com
January 29, 2026 at 12:00 AM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
ukri.org
Today, we're sharing an open letter from our Chief Executive, Professor Sir Ian Chapman, outlining changes to UKRI investment approach, and addressing concerns about research funding and the financial position of STFC. Read his letter here: www.ukri.org/news/open-le...
Open letter from Ian Chapman to research and innovation community
UKRI Chief Executive outlines changes to UKRI investment approach, addressing concerns about research funding and the financial position of STFC.
www.ukri.org
February 1, 2026 at 5:16 PM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
wbickmor.bsky.social
At a time when the UK should be capitalising on its global reputation as a great place to do science, this is an enormous own goal. I am so sorry for all those who jobs are going to be impacted.
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 9d
Both MRC and BBSRC responsive modes now withdrawn until further notice. Existing applications unlikely to succeed (late 2025 round expecting 1-5% success rate).

Listen, I get that UKRI wants to pivot. But killing both at once is devastating.

Let's hope at least one opens by summer... #AcademicSky
MRC instructs grant review boards to slash funding rates - Research Professional News
Boards asked to recommend just three applications for funding, as BBSRC also suspends calls
www.researchprofessionalnews.com
February 1, 2026 at 2:07 PM
Reposted by Mark A. Hanson
zierlab.bsky.social
This is an absolute outrage that should be discussed as widely as possible. I expect that this failing government will try and use the MRC to divert funding from academic research into commercial enterprises, killing UK research in the process.
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 9d
Both MRC and BBSRC responsive modes now withdrawn until further notice. Existing applications unlikely to succeed (late 2025 round expecting 1-5% success rate).

Listen, I get that UKRI wants to pivot. But killing both at once is devastating.

Let's hope at least one opens by summer... #AcademicSky
MRC instructs grant review boards to slash funding rates - Research Professional News
Boards asked to recommend just three applications for funding, as BBSRC also suspends calls
www.researchprofessionalnews.com
February 1, 2026 at 4:10 PM