Nicolas Alarcon
LightNews LightNews
banner
nalarcon.bsky.social
Nicolas Alarcon
@nalarcon.bsky.social
230 followers 260 following 49 posts
Bibliométrie et science ouverte. Pounding the rock.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
retractionwatch.com
Despite this, Diana Hicks told us, “it certainly feels like mandating metrics gaming and so would encourage a culture not focused on integrity.”
Exclusive: ‘Highly problematic’ policy has Saudi university pressuring faculty to cite its research
Prince Sultan University At Prince Sultan University in Saudi Arabia, faculty members must help raise their school’s academic standing not by doing impactful work, but by citing the institution’s r…
retractionwatch.com
November 24, 2025 at 7:14 PM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
freddie2310.bsky.social
Slides »» OpenAlex au service de l'évaluation de la recherche : l'idéal d'ouverture à l'épreuve de la qualité des données enpc.hal.science/hal-05363827 | Merci aux organisateurs du Séminaire Science Ouverte - Evaluation de la recherche et outils alternatifs @univ-spn.bsky.social
November 23, 2025 at 5:58 PM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
muninconference.bsky.social
🚀 Munin Conference 2025 is LIVE at UiT! 🌟 Exciting discussions on making scholarly metadata openly available underway. Join the conversation! 📝📊 #Munin2025 #OpenScience #ScholarlyPublishing #Tromsø #Norway
November 18, 2025 at 9:10 AM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
paolocrosetto.bsky.social
Gentle request that @altmetric.com and @linkedin.com resume contact to be able to track academic LinkedIn activity on AltMetric.

More and more scientific discourse is happening on BlueSky (tracked) and LinkedIn (not tracked).

@linkedin.com let AltMetric use your API and include you! NOW!
November 14, 2025 at 11:42 AM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
lucileveissier.bsky.social
Comment devient-on un·e chercheur·se très cité·e ? Réponse avec Lauranne Chaignon aujourd'hui dans TMN !

#VeilleESR
themeta.news 𝖳𝗁𝖾𝖬𝖾𝗍𝖺𝖭𝖾𝗐𝗌 @themeta.news · 14d
🟢 HCR ou ne pas être, telle est la question

Ce mercredi est parue comme chaque année la liste des #HighlyCitedResearchers

Lauranne Chaignon revient sur ses origines et sa crédibilité face aux tentatives de manipulation

themeta.news/lauranne-cha...

#VeilleESR
Interview Lauranne Chaignon Ingénieure en bibliométrie à l’Université Paris Sciences et Lettres, Lauranne Chaignon a entamé un doctorat au Centre de sociologie de l’innovation (Mines Paris – PSL) sur la liste des Highly cited researchers. Comment la liste est-elle alors devenue un indicateur d’excellence scientifique ? Progressivement, avec l’apparition du classement de Shanghai en 2003. Des scientifiques chinois l’ont développé, à la demande de leur gouvernement qui voulait savoir comment leurs universités se positionnaient au niveau mondial ; ils étaient à l’affût d’éléments sur lesquels baser leur classement. La liste des HCR a ainsi commencé à prendre de l’importance, jusqu’à devenir un indicateur destiné à évaluer la recherche d’un établissement, voire d’un pays. Figurer dans la liste est devenu un objectif en soi.
November 14, 2025 at 9:39 AM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
laurannec.bsky.social
"It's tiiime!!!", comme le dit si bien Mariah Carey. C'est aujourd'hui que parait la liste 2025 des chercheurs très cités de Clarivate !

Êtes-vous prêts ? Avez-vous révisé l'histoire de cette liste ?

Si vous avez besoin d'une antisèche, c'est ici que cela se passe : direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Highly Cited Researchers: Anatomy of a list
Abstract. The list of Highly Cited Researchers (HCR) published each year by Clarivate occupies a special place in the academic landscape, due to its use in the Shanghai rankings. This article looks at...
direct.mit.edu
November 12, 2025 at 7:39 AM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
acritschristoph.bsky.social
This is a great thread. But three points.

1. Agree: profit in publishing is the central issue, but it needed the APC to go into overdrive. The mistake of the 2010s OA movement was to shift culture around access and not profit. This damanged sci publishing bc APCs incentivize quantity over quality
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 17d
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 5:28 PM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
hansonmark.bsky.social
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 11:52 AM
nalarcon.bsky.social
Les collègues de @univparissaclay.bsky.social présentent BiSO leur outil de reporting Science ouverte universite-paris-saclay.hal.science/hal-05336463/
From Open-data to Open-source Reporting: Introducing the BiSO
In this paper, we present the Biso, an automated report created to help Université Paris-Saclay research units with monitoring Open Science policy compliance in their output. It includes, first the main goals of the project, then the guidelines followed during software development, finally a brief overview of the data sources and some of the metrics and visualizations. Since the project's aim is to provide a flexible infrastructure for automated reporting from open sources, including but not limited to the BiSO, the paper explains how the technical infrastructure can be used in the future for other report types.
universite-paris-saclay.hal.science
November 8, 2025 at 12:05 PM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
mdelhaye.bsky.social
"My bold prediction? Scholar gets the axe within 5 years. Google will announce it with 12 months' notice, Bluesky will have a collective meltdown, universities will scramble for alternatives, and research workflows will be in chaos for years."
hannahshelley.neocities.org/blog/2025_08...
Google Scholar Is Doomed
Academia built entire careers on a free Google service with zero guarantees. What could go wrong?
hannahshelley.neocities.org
October 30, 2025 at 8:09 AM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
mdelhaye.bsky.social
"Google has a proven track record of killing academic tools, Scholar generates 0 revenue in a company obsessed with billion-dollar priorities, AI is disrupting traditional research discovery, academia has built critical infrastructure around a free commercial service with 0 guarantees."
Google Scholar Is Doomed
Academia built entire careers on a free Google service with zero guarantees. What could go wrong?
hannahshelley.neocities.org
October 30, 2025 at 8:09 AM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
mdelhaye.bsky.social
L'OA repart à la hausse sur le marché de l'édition scientifique (+6,9% en 2024) : près de 50 % des articles sont publiés en OA, pour 20 % en valeur financière (prévision à 25% en 2027). L’APC moyen augmente, la part de l'hybride aussi.
#OpenAccess
www.deltathink.com/news-views-m...
News & Views: Market Sizing Update 2025 – Has OA recovered its mojo?
Overview
www.deltathink.com
October 29, 2025 at 1:49 PM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
handle.invalid
📊 The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2025 is online! 🎉 This time, we have released not one, but two editions: the Traditional Edition and the Open Edition. www.leidenranking.com
CWTS Leiden Ranking
The CWTS Leiden Ranking offers important insights into the scientific performance for major universities worldwide. Select your preferred indicators, generate results, and explore the performance of u...
www.leidenranking.com
October 29, 2025 at 12:37 PM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
jelena3121.bsky.social
The secret life of university data?

In this article, I argue that universities must work together to demand transparency and openness in how their data are transformed and used, and ensure university data serve the public mission, not private interests.

www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?sto...
Together, universities can take back control of their data
A single university can do little to demand accountability from rankings companies, but together institutions can demand reciprocal transparency, nego...
www.universityworldnews.com
October 23, 2025 at 8:51 AM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
jademaria-moisan.bsky.social
À propos d'une collaboration fructueuse🤝entre notre équipe de la Chaire UNESCO sur la #ScienceOuverte (avec @lucyces.bsky.social et Maxime Holmberg Sainte-Marie) et l'équipe de #OpenAlex pour améliorer la détection des langues.
✨Des résultats concrets et porteurs.
blog.openalex.org/a-better-way...
A Better Way to Detect Language in OpenAlex—and a Better Way to Collaborate - OpenAlex blog
As part of the recent Walden system launch, we’ve improved how OpenAlex detects the language of scholarly works. The results are immediately visible in the data: many more works are now correctly reco...
blog.openalex.org
October 22, 2025 at 3:47 PM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
mdelhaye.bsky.social
Durcissement de la validation des manuscrits basés sur des jeux de données ouverts : explosion des taux de rejet chez PLOS et Frontiers, renforcement de la formation des éditeurs chez Springer #effetdebord
www.science.org/content/arti...
Journals and publishers crack down on research from open health data sets
PLOS, Frontiers, and others announce policies trying to stem the tide of suspect research
www.science.org
October 13, 2025 at 7:09 AM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
oatp.fediscience.org.ap.brid.gy
DataCite Metadata Is Now Integrated in OpenAlex - DataCite https://datacite.org/blog/datacite-metadata-is-now-integrated-in-openalex/
DataCite Metadata Is Now Integrated in OpenAlex - DataCite
DataCite and OpenAlex have launched a new integration to amplify the discoverability and impact of open research, with over 92 million DataCite DOIs now available in OpenAlex. DataCite member organizations that register DOIs will now see their research outputs and resources indexed in OpenAlex. And OpenAlex users can now access a more complete picture of the research landscape with diverse research outputs like datasets, preprints, dissertations, software and other DataCite items. For both DataCite and OpenAlex, this integration represents an important milestone in their shared objectives to make research information more open, connected, and easy to access. It is also a landmark example for the global research community of how open infrastructures can amplify impact through connections and interoperability.
datacite.org
October 10, 2025 at 2:22 PM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
gaelos.bsky.social
L'un-e d'entre vous aurait accès à l'article de Télérama sur Laszlo de Simone?
October 8, 2025 at 9:06 AM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
hldejonge.bsky.social
Is there a relationship between the metadata publishers submit to Crossref and the submission systems they use? 🤔

We (w/ @msphelps.bsky.social) analyzed 153 publishers and 4 major systems to find out.

👉 doi.org/10.31222/osf...

#OpenScience #Crossref #OpenMetadata #BarcelonaDeclaration
October 7, 2025 at 8:18 AM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
opencitations.bsky.social
The Proceedings of WOOC 2025 are online! 🎉
📖 Index volume: zenodo.org/records/1719...
📚 All papers: zenodo.org/communities/...

@barcelonadori.bsky.social @opencitations.bsky.social @unibo.it #WOOC2025
Proceedings of the Workshop on Open Citations and Open Scholarly Metadata (WOOC 2025) – Index Volume
This is the index volume of the Proceedings of the Workshop on Open Citations and Open Scholarly Metadata (WOOC 2025), held in Bologna on 28–29 May 2025. Each workshop contribution is published in Zen...
zenodo.org
October 2, 2025 at 10:10 AM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
freddie2310.bsky.social
✨My new survey-based study on how chemistry researchers react to errors is now published in Accountability in Research @accountabilityair.bsky.social! A big thanks to the participants & @nanobubbles.bsky.social members for feedback 🫧. #ScienceCorrection #ResearchOnResearch doi.org/10.1080/0898...
On and off-the-record correction practices: A survey-based study of how chemistry researchers react to errors
This survey-based study (982 participants) explores chemistry researchers’ practices and motivations in correcting errors in scientific publications.While respondents believe errors should be corre...
doi.org
October 3, 2025 at 6:24 AM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
barcelonadori.bsky.social
1/3 Launching the BD/OA2020 Joint Task Force on Negotiating Openness of Publication Metadata.
We will work on: framework & clauses · tools/templates · pilots · capacity-building.

Read: barcelona-declaration.org/news/2025100...
and: oa2020.org/2025/10/02/b...

#OpenResearchInformation #OpenScience
Barcelona Declaration and OA2020 launch Joint Task Force on Negotiating Openness of Publication Metadata
We are excited to announce the launch of a Joint Task Force on Negotiating Openness of Publication Metadata, established in partnership between the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information a...
barcelona-declaration.org
October 2, 2025 at 3:39 PM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
pampel.bsky.social
🚀 New article in JASIST! 


We review the current challenges and future directions of institutional #OpenAccess repositories – from funding & staffing to technology & researcher engagement.


👉 doi.org/10.1002/asi....

#OpenScience @ibi-hu.bsky.social @humboldtuni.bsky.social @ztirfhtor.bsky.social
<em>Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology</em> | Wiley Online Library
Institutional repositories (IRs) are essential in advancing Open Access and facilitating the dissemination of scholarly work. This systematic review examines the challenges faced by IRs in areas such...
doi.org
September 30, 2025 at 11:47 AM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
inistlalist.bsky.social
ABES | Cadre de référence des structures de la recherche
ABES | Cadre de référence des structures de la recherche
« Ce cadre établit les règles communes définissant les structures de la recherche, notamment l’attribution d’un identifiant national et international unique, la description des caractéristiques de …
lalist.inist.fr
September 30, 2025 at 7:18 AM
Reposted by Nicolas Alarcon
eschares.bsky.social
OurResearch rebrands to OpenAlex.

blog.openalex.org/were-now-ope...
We’re now OpenAlex - OpenAlex blog
For years, we’ve been working under the name OurResearch. That name sat at the top of our org chart, with three child projects under it: OpenAlex, Unpaywall, and Unsub. Starting today, things are simp...
blog.openalex.org
September 29, 2025 at 8:47 PM