Although, I find it hard to believe such a comment coming from a world-class researcher who frequently publishes in CNS journals. The reality is that escaping this predicament would require all of us to stop chasing glossy covers, a change I don’t see happening anytime soon.

Well, everyone says that, but then they all end up doing it anyway. Still, if it is genuinely true, it is the only way to break free from the monopoly of the big publishers.

That's incredibly encouraging! However, if there were one applicant with 5 papers in Nature, Cell, or Science, and another with 5 outstanding preprints, would the preprint candidate even be considered?

Not far away at HHMI. This is how we do it now @hhmi.bsky.social. HHMI Investigator reviews and all competitions consider pre-prints equivalent to peer-reviewed articles. No reason that this can't be the norm everywhere.

The real shift would have to happen on the grants and faculty selection committees. They would have to accept preprints and start evaluating them. Unfortunately, we are far away from such reality.

Thank you to all the Team that make this work happen!

We also developed a novel mouse model with an mKate2 fluorescent IFN-β reporter, enabling precise tracking of innate immune activation. These findings pave the way for safer, more effective RNA-based medicines.

Our study reveals that IVT RNAs starting with 5′-pppA generate much higher levels of immunogenic dsRNA compared to 5′-pppG. This insight sheds light on a key driver of immune activation in RNA therapeutics.

Perhaps they serve as a repertoire of past and future solutions for responding to various stresses and driving evolutionary adaptations. Furthermore, have we truly explored 'all' possible conditions and mechanisms of action?