Timur Ergen
LightNews LightNews
trgn.bsky.social
Timur Ergen
@trgn.bsky.social
1.9K followers 520 following 34 posts
Social Scientist @iaw
https://tergen.org
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Timur Ergen
roderikrekker.bsky.social
(5/10) Analyses on 22 years of ESS data from 30 countries provided clear and consistent support for this gender intensification explanation, by demonstrating that the youth gender gap peaks in middle adolescence, narrows during late adolescence, and mostly disappears in early adulthood.
November 16, 2025 at 2:25 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
tbenner.bsky.social
Just in time for German vice chancellor Klingbeil’s China visit more evidence of China shock gutting German core industries.

www.ft.com/content/239e...
November 13, 2025 at 6:31 AM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
benbraun.bsky.social
The central argument in this excellent paper & thread is that the open-access turn has neglected profit; indeed, it turbo-charged publishers’ margins. As political economists who know a thing or two about profit and power we should speak up a lot more. As it says below: What we’re doing is crazy.
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 7d
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 12, 2025 at 8:30 AM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
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
Reposted by Timur Ergen
hansonmark.bsky.social
Scientists operate on principles of good faith. But this is just ridiculous. If you, dear reader, take nothing else away from The Drain paper, it is that publishers cannot be invited to the table any longer.

They can participate and carve a space, but they can't be part of shaping policy.

3/n
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
hansonmark.bsky.social
For-profit journals are supposed to improve research quality, yet they're perversely incentivized to churn out whatever they can monetize. This was happening before AI (see Strain: bit.ly/43gJPUM), and AI will make it worse.

It's insane that we volunteer our time to help them do so.

4/n
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
mathiaslarsen.bsky.social
Pleased to have my research featured in @nytimes.com reporting on China's role in a global green transition

www.nytimes.com/2025/11/10/c...
A Flood of Green Tech From China Is Upending Global Climate Politics
www.nytimes.com
November 11, 2025 at 1:58 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
benbraun.bsky.social
Imagine a wealthy country that is several years into a brutal energy price and Chinese competition double shock that's decimating its industrial base.

What should the economy minister do?
a) Something
b) Double down on carbon shock therapy by bringing the old ordo guard back in from the cold... 1/2
Nach Ludwig Erhards Vorbild: Reiche will weniger Staat und mehr Markt
Die Wirtschaftsministerin will den Staat schrumpfen – und huldigt Ludwig Erhard. Mit diesem Überdruss an Pathos wird ihre Wirtschaftspolitik aber nicht besser.
www.surplusmagazin.de
November 11, 2025 at 5:15 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
70sbachchan.bsky.social
“China is now making more money from exporting green technology than America makes from exporting fossil fuels. This trend will continue simply because renewables are cheap.”

Gift link: China’s clean-energy revolution will reshape markets and politics
www.economist.com/leaders/2025...
China’s clean-energy revolution will reshape markets and politics
The world’s biggest manufacturer now has an interest in the world decarbonising
www.economist.com
November 8, 2025 at 6:55 AM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
pardoguerra.bsky.social
After publishing the 1953 paper with stolen data and winning a Nobel Prize, James Watson basically coasted on the back of Franklin's work for an astonishing 71 years with few substantive contributions to the field.
jlkaufmann.bsky.social JL Kaufmann @jlkaufmann.bsky.social · 11d
I see James Watson has died.

What did Watson discover?

Rosalind Franklin's lab notes.

Only we spell it 'S-T-E-A-L' these days.
November 7, 2025 at 8:49 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
carlbergstrom.com
A week after the arXiv was forced to tighten down on submissions because of overwhelming volumes of AI slop, bioRxiv is throwing the doors wide open.
mehr.nz samuel mehr @mehr.nz · 11d
disappointed that @biorxivpreprint.bsky.social is implicitly endorsing the use of LLMs to replace scientific thought

@richardsever.bsky.social this is a short-sighted move and a net negative for science
odedrechavi.bsky.social Oded Rechavi @odedrechavi.bsky.social · 12d
IT'S HAPPENING! 💥 I'm psyched to launch the collaboration between @qedscience.bsky.social & @openrxiv.bsky.social @biorxivpreprint.bsky.social! Preprint + q.e.d = your science is out there, and anyone can appreciate it. Let's care about making discoveries, and not on “getting published” (1/3) 👇
November 7, 2025 at 1:59 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
adamgurri.liberalcurrents.com
As @awhf.bsky.social documents, that’s exactly why ALEC is so successful www.liberalcurrents.com/against-mast...
November 7, 2025 at 3:53 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
europeatharvard.bsky.social
We're delighted to mark 100 years of @daadworldwide.bsky.social & the German Academic Scholarship Foundation. Join us on 11/13 to celebrate their mission of academic exchange and explore German-American academic & political relations. @dziblatt.bsky.social

RSVP: ces.fas.harvard.edu/events/2025/...
November 7, 2025 at 4:23 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
abenewman.bsky.social
1/ As Trump goes to Asia, EU leaders threaten to take action on China. Rare earth restrictions may have finally brought the EU out of its slumber. At the same time, Europe pushing for greater free trade agreements with the rest of the world. Will action match words?
www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
Von der Leyen Says EU Ready to Act on China Rare-Earth Threat
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Brussels is considering all options to react to China’s rare-earth threat.
www.bloomberg.com
October 25, 2025 at 12:14 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
jonasnahm.com
Industrial policy is back — and it's changing fast. What started as "green" strategy is now a global race for clean tech competitiveness and economic security. But do we actually know what works? That's what we're asking at the New Energy Industrial Strategy (NEIS) Center. /1
October 24, 2025 at 5:09 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
cornelban.bsky.social
China’s approach to venture capital isn’t Silicon Valley 2.0 — it’s industrial strategy with a term sheet. And it explains better than subsidies or state banks why the country is a technological innovation superpower. geoeconomic.substack.com/p/vc-a-la-ccp
VC à la CCP
How Beijing fused planning and venture capital, outflanking the West’s innovation game
geoeconomic.substack.com
October 21, 2025 at 5:24 AM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
lhaffert.bsky.social
Why do rustbelts vote radical right? Studying the German Ruhr area, @nilsblossey.bsky.social, @lstoetze.bsky.social and I show: it’s not just about deindustrialization, but also about the original industrialization. Where coal is buried deeper and mining started later, the AfD is stronger today 1/12
October 17, 2025 at 2:29 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
hadoose.bsky.social
🚨New Article Out! “The Scottish Road to Net Zero: Corporate Welfare and Assetization Cascades”

The article focuses on the evolution of the land-based natural capital market in Scotland in light of the country's net zero efforts.
October 14, 2025 at 12:54 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
pculpepper.bsky.social
Tl;dr Big incumbents are a black hole into whose gaping maw innovative startups disappear and their innovations with them.
florianederer.bsky.social Florian Ederer @florianederer.bsky.social · Oct 14
Do incumbents buy startups to scale innovation or to stifle it?

New research covering 60 countries finds that acquired startups were highly innovative before their acquisition, but their patenting drops sharply afterward, while acquirers' innovation doesn't rise.

www.oecd.org/en/publicati...
October 14, 2025 at 5:21 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
mpifg.bsky.social
Thank you to all who joined us in Cologne this week for the 2nd Max Planck Summer School for Women in Political Economy! A fantastic line-up of speakers and participants, thoughtful discussions and global perspectives. Huge thanks to organizers @palmapolyak.bsky.social and @dustinvoss.bsky.social!
Group photo of the participants Pauline Kohlhase speaking in a group setting Audience member speaking at a panel session participant speaking in group discussion
September 26, 2025 at 10:06 AM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
jonasmeckling.bsky.social
🌍 New in @nature.com: The geoeconomic turn in decarbonization, with data from Simon Evenett et al. and @industrialpolicy.bsky.social @ucberkeleyofficial.bsky.social @natureatcal.bsky.social www.nature.com/articles/s41... 🧵
September 25, 2025 at 5:03 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
luukschmitz.bsky.social
The emerging cross-shareholding and concentration in the U.S. chipmaking/AI stack is a big open question in polecon. Today's announcement comes on top of Nvidia's $5bn investment in Intel. www.ft.com/content/d3ca...
Nvidia to invest up to $100bn in OpenAI
Partnership will support huge build-out of data centres for artificial intelligence
www.ft.com
September 22, 2025 at 8:33 PM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
fgenovese.bsky.social
TLDR if you don't wanna read the paper thread:

A climate motivated energy transition requires a lot of money from investors. Ofc interventionist policymakers gotta provide markets with high levels of info over time. But our paper indicates that windows of opportunity can discipline investors in SR.
fgenovese.bsky.social Federica Genovese @fgenovese.bsky.social · Sep 15
🚨 @patrickbayer.bsky.social, @lorenzocrippa.bsky.social and I have a paper entitled “Energy Transition, Financial Markets and EU Interventionism: Lessons from the Ukraine Crisis” cond. accepted at @psrm.bsky.social.

Text: federica-genovese.com/downloads/Ba...

Gist of the paper in this 🧵 :

1/12
"Energy Transition, Financial Markets and EU Interventionism: Lessons from the Ukraine Crisis" by Patrick Bayer, Lorenzo Crippa and Federica Genovese A successful energy transition requires the reallocation of private capital away from fossil fuel assets to greener alternatives. This transition is typically hindered by investors’ focus on today’s returns. In times of crisis, however, credible and unambiguous political signals about the future profitability of green industries can steer investments towards low-carbon assets. Drawing on European Union interventions during the onset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we present an event study of daily stock market returns following the most salient policy announcements by the European Commission in 2022. Our analysis shows that markets for shares of EU-based energy firms were initially prepared to move capital to cleaner companies, suggesting support for the clean energy transition. However, the short-lived distributional effects materialized only for announcements that could unmistakably be understood as unwavering commitments to the EU’s green renewal, while more ambiguous announcements did not have the same distributional implications. Our findings emphasize that repeated and unambiguous political signals during crisis episodes can create favorable market conditions, at least in the short-term, to support capital reallocation towards greener stocks.
September 15, 2025 at 10:25 AM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
jonasnahm.com
1/ New report from @bentleyallan.bsky.social's Net Zero Policy Lab: As the US withdraws from green tech industries and pressures allies to follow suit, China is stepping in to power the developing world's energy transition. The scale is staggering.

www.netzeropolicylab.com/china-green-...
China Green Leap Outward — Net Zero Industrial Policy Lab
A new China Low Carbon Technology FDI Database
www.netzeropolicylab.com
September 12, 2025 at 2:21 AM
Reposted by Timur Ergen
mkblyth.bsky.social
The wonderful Catherine DeVries has a substack about writing and how all sorts of things are at work to destroy it. She interviews writers about what and how they write. I'm up this week: catherineeunicedevries.substack.com/p/etched-in-...
September 11, 2025 at 5:53 PM