Jonny Coates
LightNews LightNews
banner
jacoates.bsky.social
Jonny Coates
@jacoates.bsky.social
2.8K followers 490 following 1.2K posts
Leading advocate for preprints, integrity, community & improved research culture | Host Preprints in Motion podcast | Immunologist | https://linktr.ee/jacoates
Posts Replies Media Videos
jacoates.bsky.social
Still waiting for the UK to adopt these kinds of roles. Advocacy/direct effort is a vital part of OS adoption

mcgill.wd3.myworkdayjobs.com/McGill_Caree...

Great opportunity for someone in Canada though.
Open Science Community Officer
Please refer to the How to Apply for a Job (for External Candidates) job aid for instructions on how to apply. If you are an active McGill employee (ie: currently in an active contract or position at ...
mcgill.wd3.myworkdayjobs.com
December 23, 2025 at 8:47 PM
Reposted by Jonny Coates
jbakcoleman.bsky.social
It sticks out in this article that #openscience top brass quickly pivoted from critiquing “gold standard” science to embracing it.

Helping the very same nih director who is slashing science in the us, politicizing it, and shared conspiracy theories about me and my colleagues work.
December 23, 2025 at 1:45 PM
jacoates.bsky.social
Question to feed into an upcoming video:

Who is science for? / Why do you do science?

Other academics? The public? Policy makers? Just a career? to benefit society?

#academicsky #science
December 23, 2025 at 11:25 AM
jacoates.bsky.social
This is vital for our success. So far I've been doing everything whilst unemployed and burning through savings.

Even small donations would help with keeping the podcast running and allow an expanded YouTube effort. Bigger donations would enable us to enable others.
ripplingideas.bsky.social Rippling Ideas @ripplingideas.bsky.social · 7d
We're actively seeking financial support.

We've achieved an enormous amount since we formed only 3 months ago but this has all been without funding. We're on track to become THE advocacy org in these spaces in 2026.

If you'd like to donate you can do so here: donorbox.org/core-fu...
1/3
December 22, 2025 at 6:04 PM
Reposted by Jonny Coates
techwontsave.us
🚨 THE FINAL TWO 🚨

From thirty-two candidates, we’ve now made it to the final round where Elon Musk and Peter Thiel will face off for the crown.

Who will win? You decide!

🗳️ Cast your ballot: twsu.forms.app/wpit25-final
Elon Musk vs Peter Thiel
December 19, 2025 at 2:07 PM
jacoates.bsky.social
"A mix of science advocate and the guy who brings the mulled wine to the party—but instead of wine, it’s hot takes on academic integrity."

- I'd like to be clear. I also bring the wine!
December 19, 2025 at 4:29 PM
jacoates.bsky.social
I keep saying that there is a huge problem in the OS space (& wider reform) of mistrust and disillusionment.

This, right here, is spot on. It's so nice to hear this coming from someone else and Richard is hitting some of the concerns I've heard from researchers.
rmcelreath.bsky.social Richard McElreath 🐈‍⬛ @rmcelreath.bsky.social · 12d
The Max Planck Society has begun an exploratory round table for open science. We are drafting some recommendations to leadership. Still a long way to go! But here are my notes on the most recent draft, just so you all know how I am trying to steer things.
Richard McElreath: It must not be overlooked that junior researchers DO NOT TRUST US. We, the directors, are a big part of the problem. We made this system, we remake it every year, and we benefit from it. What can we do to credibly signal our commitment to reform a corrupt research culture? My conversations with junior scientists in the society has taught me that directors are too often either indifferent or hostile to science reform. We cannot hope to convince our prize winning colleagues. Their egos are immune. But we can replace retirements with researchers who care more about integrity than their own prestige. This is important both for earning the trust of the junior researchers who really do the research in the MPG and for attracting excellent future directors and starting to earn the trust of the public. So I suggest two strong signals to our junior researchers (and the public): (1) we will reform recruitment and promotion at all levels to eliminate proxies like citation counts and journal brands in favor of reliability and sustainability; (2) we will make open science skills a core part of scientific training, through the graduate schools at a minimum, as conditions for the central funding. The most ambitious thing we could do, as hinted at in item 5 above, is to meaningfully invest in metascientific research. As the largest basic research organization in the world, the MPG is uniquely suited to studying research and its products from a broad perspective that includes the humanities, the sciences, and policy. Governments are already involved in science reform. Someone should study it in an organized and sustained way.
December 17, 2025 at 11:42 AM
jacoates.bsky.social
www.science.org/content/arti...

Worth highlighting this isn't the first, vixra has a dedicated AI platform already - ai.vixra.org (I don't recommend this or their "normal" preprint server).

You will not find any of these on our preprint server list: ripplingideas.org/portfolio/pr... just FYI
Preprint Servers
Want to update this table or add entries: complete this form Last update: Nov 2025. N.b This form only contains active servers and has a life science focus. To be included, the server must allow au…
ripplingideas.org
December 12, 2025 at 6:02 PM
Reposted by Jonny Coates
ripplingideas.bsky.social
New guide alert! 🚨

If your journal club is stuck in “read and vibe” mode, this walks you through switching to a preprint review club where your discussions actually help authors and your ECRs.

Science but with community energy ✨

Get it here: zenodo.org/records/1...
1/2
Guide to running a preprint review club
This guide walks you through everything you need to start, run, and grow a preprint review club — whether you’re converting an existing journal club or building one from scratch. It covers choosing preprints, organising meetings, training early-career researchers, writing structured reviews, and sharing them on platforms like PREreview or Hypothes.is. Designed for labs, departments, and research communities, the guide shows how preprint review clubs can boost critical-reading skills, strengthen collaborative science, and make peer review more open, constructive, and fun. Complete with templates, workflows, discussion prompts, and sample emails, this resource is your step-by-step companion for transforming traditional journal clubs into modern, impactful spaces for scholarly dialogue.
zenodo.org
December 11, 2025 at 6:53 PM
jacoates.bsky.social
Breaking silence again to say how dissapointed and slightly confused I am at this. Not a single direct mention of preprints - the single biggest effort that can be capitalised on to achieve assessment reform. Given some of the orgs involved this is particularly perplexing

sfdora.org/2025/12/02/a...
Advancing coordinated reform in publishing and research assessment | DORA
Global leaders in publishing and research assessment reform met in Pisa to align strategies for more equitable, transparent, and collaborative practices. Learn about key challenges, shared agendas, an...
sfdora.org
December 5, 2025 at 4:38 PM
jacoates.bsky.social
UK government, delivering late and not as advertised initially.

Not ideal implementation but much needed to prevent abusive employers and poor, bullying, behaviours. I've had my share of these and the damage an abusive employer can do is immense.

www.theguardian.com/global-devel...
UK workers will get unfair dismissal rights after six months from 1 January 2027
Angela Rayner drops plan to force earlier implementation after talks, says source
www.theguardian.com
December 4, 2025 at 7:11 PM
jacoates.bsky.social
December 2, 2025 at 2:54 PM
jacoates.bsky.social
Vinay Prasad everyone.....

Although I will hand it to him, he's not hiding his distain for anyone who disagrees with him. Nor is he hiding his willingness to ignore scientific debate or the scientific method.

To be clear, this is not how a good scientist behaves
November 30, 2025 at 11:46 AM
jacoates.bsky.social
This is kinda the problem. Science has been built on inherent trust and the notion that there are no bad actors or people doing bad things.

We need to have clear signals of trust beyond the individual person. The incentives are too misaligned for that system to make sense.
mcduncanlab.bsky.social Mara Duncan @mcduncanlab.bsky.social · Nov 22
I could use an antibody for a protein that I know is at the minus end and say i stained for my new protein.

I could fail to add antibody to my sample to show you that the siRNA worked…

Ultimately, we either trust one another or it’s all over.
November 23, 2025 at 2:15 PM
jacoates.bsky.social
Not sure it was meant to be used for mulled wine but still!
November 21, 2025 at 7:31 PM
jacoates.bsky.social
Going to try to get into the festive spirit. Tree is up, dogs stocking is up. Finishing touches to do tomorrow.

Christmas music on, mulled wine in preparation.
November 21, 2025 at 5:32 PM
jacoates.bsky.social
Please do subscribe!

I hate asking for things but this really does actually help when trying to seek funding (& I currently have no funding so it's even more important).

Promise it's worthwhile :)
November 19, 2025 at 3:04 PM
jacoates.bsky.social
Working hard today!

Lots of data collection. The analysis pipelines are ready and waiting. Writing/slides are underway.

Also have new YouTube videos out earlier this week!

#preprints
November 19, 2025 at 2:16 PM
jacoates.bsky.social
I can't wait to share this bit of work in January!

It's been something I've wanted to do for ages now and it's finally underway.

Going to be featuring an in depth look @openrxiv.bsky.social (because they're wonderful and provide API access) and more!
ripplingideas.bsky.social Rippling Ideas @ripplingideas.bsky.social · Nov 16
We're currenty up to something very, very, exciting!

Actually, it's multiple interlinked things :)

Sign up to our YouTube (bit.ly/RI_YouTube) & Newsletter (https://bit.ly/RIsub) to be the first to see!

#preprints #scipub
November 16, 2025 at 5:19 PM
Reposted by Jonny Coates
richardsever.bsky.social
The Matthew Effect is alive and well in academia - always makes me wary of programs aimed at identifying rising stars in an already highly talented pool...

elifesciences.org/reviewed-pre...
elifesciences.org
November 12, 2025 at 7:03 PM
jacoates.bsky.social
Join us on the podcast!

Get in touch if you've recently posted an interesting preprint - we'd love to chat with you
ripplingideas.bsky.social Rippling Ideas @ripplingideas.bsky.social · Nov 12
Have you recently posted a reall cool preprint?

Then come and discuss it with us on the podcast!
November 12, 2025 at 6:55 PM
jacoates.bsky.social
If you're working to change academia or scholarly publishing then this is such a small yet impactful investment!

With 50+ hours of content about how great preprints are this is a vast resource. We've also recently started a YouTube channel to expand this even more (www.youtube.com/@rippling_id...)
ripplingideas.bsky.social Rippling Ideas @ripplingideas.bsky.social · Nov 10
Preprints in Motion is looking for funding/sponsorship!

We're at that point in the year where we need to secure running costs for 2026.

We've captured 50+ hours of ECRs discussing their cool new preprints!

Check out our flyer outlining potential funding tiers

#scicomm #preprints
November 11, 2025 at 12:44 PM
jacoates.bsky.social
This is fantastic!
November 11, 2025 at 12:29 PM
jacoates.bsky.social
Mark knocking it out of the park again!
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.
November 11, 2025 at 12:24 PM