David Bodesheim
LightNews LightNews
dbodesheim.bsky.social
David Bodesheim
@dbodesheim.bsky.social
97 followers 300 following 0 posts
PhD Student at TU Dresden. I am working in Computational Materials Science on 2D COFs

https://nano.tu-dresden.de/member/david_bodesheim/
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by David Bodesheim
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 David Bodesheim
nature.com
The Max Planck Society is good at attracting international postdocs but struggles to retain them, survey finds

go.nature.com/4fFENHi
Postdoc depression and anxiety rates are rising, finds survey of 872 researchers
The Max Planck Society is good at attracting international postdocs but struggles to retain them, survey finds.
go.nature.com
August 13, 2025 at 9:20 AM
Reposted by David Bodesheim
nanoporous.net
Check out “opXRD: Open Experimental Powder X-ray Diffraction Database” #preprint #chemsky — An openly available and easily accessible #dataset of labeled and unlabeled experimental powder diffractograms, designed (among other things) to help train or test ML models. doi.org/10.48550/arX...
Workflow description (TOC Graphic) for the mentioned paper
March 10, 2025 at 2:32 PM
Reposted by David Bodesheim
samvangele.bsky.social
What do #COF materials really look like? Well ... It's tricky.
Check out our recent article about disorder effects in COFs and how refinements are important, yet not really straightforward...oftentimes coming up short from the big picture.

pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/...

#Science #Chemsky
The Devil Is in the Details: Pitfalls and Ambiguities in the Analysis of X-ray Powder Diffraction Data of 2D Covalent Organic Frameworks
X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD) data of covalent organic frameworks (COFs) seem to be simple and apparently do not contain a lot of structural information, as these patterns usually do not show more t...
pubs.acs.org
January 31, 2025 at 3:30 PM