Stephen Pinfield
LightNews LightNews
banner
stephenpinfield.bsky.social
Stephen Pinfield
@stephenpinfield.bsky.social
550 followers 80 following 3 posts
Professor of Information Services Management at the University of Sheffield, UK, interested in open access, open science, research policy, library and information services.

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4696-764X
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
danbrockington.bsky.social
Are you puzzled and struggling with scientific publishing. Are pressed and stressed about the process, and worried about how much it costs?

Then please read this fanastic thread from Mark Hanson
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 4d
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 12:21 PM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
coalitions-oa.bsky.social
1/ cOAlition S announces its 2026–2030 strategy, guided by a refreshed, shared vision: a scholarly communication system that enables rapid, open, transparent & equitable sharing of trustworthy scientific knowledge.
www.coalition-s.org/coalition-s-...
#OpenScience #ScholarlyComm #Plan_S #OpenAccess
cOAlition S Strategy 2026-2030
November 12, 2025 at 10:40 AM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
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 Stephen Pinfield
danbrockington.bsky.social
Profits from scientific publishing are eye-watering, costing us billions. In ‘The Drain of Scientific Publishing’ (arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820), (building on ‘The Strain of Scientific Publishing’ doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00327) we show how it is harmful – and unnecessary.
The Drain of Scientific Publishing
The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science. We need the most powerful members of the research community, funders, governments and ...
arxiv.org
November 12, 2025 at 11:41 AM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
rorinstitute.bsky.social
Join RoRI Co-Chair @ludowaltman.bsky.social in Cambridge on 3 Dec, where he'll be a keynote at a forum exploring the Publish, Review, Curate model.

The event will showcase initiatives and discuss how this model can shape the future of scholarly communication: coar-repositories.org/news-updates...
November 12, 2025 at 12:44 PM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
juancommander.scholcommlab.ca
Of particular interest to those interested in #preprints and #openscience , or anyone who has been thinking about the Engagement with Society aspects of OS cc. @asapbio.bsky.social @ludowaltman.bsky.social @stephenpinfield.bsky.social @jacoates.bsky.social
juancommander.scholcommlab.ca Juan Pablo Alperin @juancommander.scholcommlab.ca · 24d
The #OpenScience movement aims to transform how scientists work with each other and with society. These shifts pull in different directions — and “scientific cultures” helps make sense of the tension.

NEW BLOG: Tensions in Open Science and Scientific Culture
www.scholcommlab.ca/2025/10/21/t...
Tensions in Open Science and Scientific Culture
Open Science (OS) holds a powerful promise: to serve society by providing universal public access to knowledge. But, as we continue to see OS be adopted across the world, it becomes increasingly cl…
www.scholcommlab.ca
October 21, 2025 at 9:07 PM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
lseimpactblog.bsky.social
💥New: Distributed Peer Review – How the wisdom of the crowd can allocate grant funding

✍️ Melanie Benson Marshall, Anna Butters, @stephenpinfield.bsky.social @tomstafford.mastodon.online.ap.brid.gy

#PeerReview #PRW25 #ResearchPolicy
Distributed Peer Review – How the wisdom of the crowd can allocate grant funding - Impact of Social Sciences
New research shows engaging the applicants in funding review processes can resolve and reframe many issues facing peer review.
blogs.lse.ac.uk
September 18, 2025 at 10:07 AM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
ludowaltman.bsky.social
Our @cwts.nl PhD candidate Narmin Rzayeva chose to submit her most recent article, co-authored with @stephenpinfield.bsky.social and me, to MetaROR. The article presents an analysis of the adoption of preprinting across disciplines and regions.

Glad to see the feedback provided by two reviewers!
metaror.bsky.social MetaROR @metaror.bsky.social · Sep 3
⌛ How is preprinting adopted over time across disciplines and regions? Our latest article attempts to answer this.

The reviewers praised the comprehensive analysis & clear presentation, while requesting more background information & addressing data availability issues.

👇 Read it now on MetaROR
Adoption of Preprinting Across Scientific Disciplines and Geographical Regions (1991-2023)
metaror.org
September 13, 2025 at 4:30 PM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
rorinstitute.bsky.social
Should we be doing less peer review?

As research output grows, many question how much peer review the system can sustain.

RoRI's @ludowaltman.bsky.social: “We need to ask ourselves whether there really is a need for all research outputs to be peer reviewed.”

www.nature.com/articles/d41...
The peer-review crisis: how to fix an overloaded system
Journals and funders are trying to boost the speed and effectiveness of review processes that are under strain.
www.nature.com
August 8, 2025 at 10:32 AM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
jeffreybrainard.bsky.social
Are scientists citing papers without reading them? #scientificpublishing #AcademicChatter #peerreview @science.org www.science.org/content/arti...
‘Lazy’ authors? One in six scientific papers mischaracterize work they cite
New study of long-standing problem takes novel approach, asking cited authors to evaluate accuracy
www.science.org
July 16, 2025 at 8:19 PM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
ludowaltman.bsky.social
Very grateful to all colleagues in the metascience community who dropped by at the @metaror.bsky.social stand at the recent #Metascience2025 conference. Glad to see the overwhelming interest in the MetaROR platform!

metaror.org

@rorinstitute.bsky.social @aimosinc.bsky.social @cwts.nl
MetaROR flyer
July 13, 2025 at 12:42 PM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
rorinstitute.bsky.social
New article in @nature.com covering RoRI's recent study of 100,000+ grant applicants across 14 funding programmes, shedding new light on the Matthew effect in science: how early funding success can compound over a researcher's career - www.nature.com/articles/d41...
June 23, 2025 at 9:25 AM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
richardsever.bsky.social
Lots of debate in the publishing world about the merits of commercial hosting vs self-hosting vs new-gen open infrastructure. Sunsetting of PubPub is a cautionary tale
www.linkedin.com/posts/gabest...
If you're one of my academic publishing folks: sadly, it's true. | Gabriel Stein
If you're one of my academic publishing folks: sadly, it's true. Due to a funder's unexpected decision to pull support, we've had to make the incredibly difficult decision to wind down...
www.linkedin.com
June 24, 2025 at 2:44 PM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
johanrooryck.bsky.social
Excellent report by EUA: www.eua.eu/publications...
Reclaiming academic ownership of the scholarly communication system
EUA - European University Association
www.eua.eu
June 24, 2025 at 4:08 PM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
ludowaltman.bsky.social
Glad to see how various data providers are working on improving the quality of their article-preprint matching, partly based on insights provided by @katiecorker.bsky.social and myself.

Hopefully we will soon see the concrete effects of this!
June 24, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
oaspa.bsky.social
A fresh conversation about the future of open access
OASPA, in collaboration with @researchconsulting.bsky.social has released a Next 50% project-primer that frames a fresh conversation about the future of open access. Visit the post bit.ly/3Se3akr for full details, including the primer & survey #OA
May 22, 2025 at 3:36 PM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
leidenmadtrics.bsky.social
To accelerate the sharing of scientific knowledge, researchers increasingly publish their work on preprint servers. In our latest blog post, @ludowaltman.bsky.social, Narmin Rzayeva and @stephenpinfield.bsky.social discuss the state of preprinting in Europe and the Netherlands.

👇 Read it now
The state of preprinting in Europe and the Netherlands
To accelerate the sharing of scientific knowledge, researchers in many disciplines increasingly publish their work on preprint servers. In this post, Ludo Waltman and colleagues discuss the state of p...
www.leidenmadtrics.nl
May 22, 2025 at 8:44 AM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
morphss.bsky.social
We are pleased to announce we have a shiny new website with @kcommons.bsky.social and fresh new logo! MORPHSS is ready to roll.

Please share. 😊 @theul.bsky.social @camdighum.bsky.social

morphss.hcommons.org
morphss.hcommons.org
May 7, 2025 at 1:02 PM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
juancommander.scholcommlab.ca
JOIN US! Postdoctoral Fellowship Opportunity on Preprints and Open Peer Review. Multi-year project. Come with work @nataschachtena.bsky.social, @mariomalicki.bsky.social, me, and the rest of #ScholCommLab. Apply by May 23rd!

bit.ly/SCLpostdoc2025

Please share widely!
Hiring: Postdoctoral Fellow on Preprints and Open Peer Review - Scholarly Communications Lab | ScholCommLab
Postdoctoral Fellowship on Preprints and Open Peer Review Description The Scholarly Communications Lab (ScholCommLab) at Simon Fraser University is seeking […]
bit.ly
April 30, 2025 at 5:15 AM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
nataschachtena.bsky.social
1/5🧵After a long trip through peer review limbo, our paper on inclusion and public participation in Open Science policy is finally out!
📖 doi.org/10.1098/rsos...
Towards an inclusive Open Science: examining EDI and public participation in policy documents across Europe and the Americas | Royal Society Open Science
National, international and organizational Open Science (OS) policies are being formulated to improve and accelerate research through increased transparency, collaboration and better access to scienti...
doi.org
April 30, 2025 at 6:36 PM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
ludowaltman.bsky.social
Preprinting helps accelerate dissemination of scientific knowledge. To what extent do researchers adopt preprinting? How does this vary by discipline and region?

Together with Narmin Rzayeva and @stephenpinfield.bsky.social, I just published article answering these questions. osf.io/preprints/so...
Adoption of preprinting per discipline and region
May 1, 2025 at 2:25 PM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
openresshef.bsky.social
This forthcoming hybrid event at @sheffielduni.bsky.social on 21st May will bring together experts to explore the challenges & opportunities in fostering more equitable publication models.

More info and booking links on the page below:

#OpenAccess #OpenResearch #AcademicSky
Supporting Equitable Publication Models: A Roundtable Discussion
Academic publishing is shaped by a system of inequalities which significantly impact where and how researchers publish their work. This roundtable discussion will bring together academics, publishers ...
www.sheffield.ac.uk
April 25, 2025 at 7:37 AM
stephenpinfield.bsky.social
Thanks to David Bawden & @lynrobinson.bsky.social for their review doi.org/10.55741/knj... of my book, ‘Achieving global open access’ doi.org/10.4324/9781... “recommended for anyone seeking an insightful analysis of the current problems of global open access, and thoughts...[on] future solutions”
doi.org
April 28, 2025 at 3:07 PM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
ludowaltman.bsky.social
Papers mills and other manipulative practices are major problem in scientific publishing system. Addressing this problem requires in-depth system-level understanding of dynamics leading to these practices. At @cwts.nl we have PhD position to work on this!

www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/vacancies...
PhD Paper Mills and Systematic Manipulation in Research Publishing
PhD candidate Paper Mills and Systematic Manipulation in Research PublishingThe past decade has seen the rise of distinct new challenges for research integrity in the context of scientific publishing....
www.universiteitleiden.nl
April 25, 2025 at 3:36 PM
Reposted by Stephen Pinfield
ludowaltman.bsky.social
I just published a blog post arguing that the reform movements for research assessment and scientific publishing need to better align their agendas. This is crucial for the success of both movements.

www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/ass...

@leidenmadtrics.bsky.social
Assessment reform and publishing reform need to go hand in hand
The need to reform research assessment and scientific publishing practices is widely recognized. However, Ludo Waltman argues that the assessment and publishing reform movements will be successful onl...
www.leidenmadtrics.nl
March 26, 2025 at 9:45 AM