Sorry I just wasn't sure what you meant. I agree manels are rubbish :)

I appreciate that perspective. Just that women shouldn't be excluded from any aspect of scientific credit/prestige (including opportunities to review) because of systemic sexism. Whether peer review itself sucks is another, very important, question. Of course when it comes to sexism it's all linked

Interesting point! Springer Nature data seems to agree 'across most fields, we see a higher % of women reviewers compared with women authors at submission' but interprets this as a good thing as it suggests 'editor efforts to diversify reviewer pools' are working www.nature.com/immersive/co...

My conferences?

Hi Dr Williams, follow me and I'll message you a link to the specific article I'm subtweeting ;)

It's not even politics I just want to spend some time in a bubble where 'ranch' is not considered an ingredient (sorry)

I love an annotation! That's a great one. YES it's nerdy and that's why it's GOOD 😉

via www.nature.com/articles/d41... thanks to @annenotintokyo.bsky.social 😁

and forbidden liquorice allsort

Sorry to say I haven't got a great solution to contribute, myself 😟

The Taz looks awesome! Thanks for flagging it to me. But the model seems like it might require some very specific conditions to work (The Guardian does it, for example, but has a HUGE endowment) thefix.media/2025/03/17/n...

Ah, I have been involved in all of these options at various places, and unfortunately none come even close — not even CLOSE — to the amounts that are required to fund the fourth estate, as subcriptions from loyal subscribers do

Since it took me ages to track it down, here's the original article in the FT in case of use to anyone else www.ft.com/content/a801...