Michael Markie

I currently have three papers in review at "high impact" journals. One of them has been sitting there for two years. In that time my daughter was born and learned how to walk, but apparently publishing a PDF was still not possible for me. For another one, after four months in review the editor told me they cannot find a second reviewer and asked me to suggest more reviewers. A third one sent me a message in 2026 saying the PDF I uploaded was larger than 10 MB and that I should please reupload everything to make the file smaller. All of this just to eventually pay between 7,000 and 12,000 USD per paper so someone can officially approve that the science we do is "legitimate". Reminder: not a single reviewer will be compensated here. I still don't understand how we as scientists can collectively be so smart when doing science and still tolerate a system like this when it comes to sharing our findings. We should move to preprints plus open review, whether human or AI, asap. So frustrated about it. I'd suggest sharing your work on bioRxiv or medRxiv, reading and reviewing preprints when you can, and highlighting good research, especially if it is still a preprint. Try platforms like ResearchHub (that pay for peer review) and experiment with AI based reviewers for faster feedback. Instead I read this as a proposed "revolutionary" measure:

$RSC is now available for trading on Coinbase UK 🇬🇧

Crypto —> Universities With Endaoment, @ResearchHub has helped distribute $1M in research funding to Stanford, Harvard, UCSD, UCI, UC Davis, Purdue, USC and others. Open proposals, open peer review, and faster funding 🔥

I wrote about the deluge of AI slop that is drowning scientific journals and preprint servers theatlantic.com/science/2026/0…

Does exposure to EMF from an electrical substation impact the injury risk of NFL players? ⚡️🤔 Announcing $100K in funding to test @living_energy's viral hypothesis about why the 49ers are the NFL's most injured team. 4-8 grants. Preregistration required. RFP in comments👇

ResearchHub Wrapped 2025.

OpenAlex is now serving ONE BILLION api calls monthly (that's as much as the Crossref api)! Plus another half-billion monthly via the Unpaywall api. A million api calls isn't cool; a BILLION api calls is cool :) youtube.com/shorts/U61phJ8…

Can (and should) academia be decentralized? Our panel of experts will assess the feasibility of decentralization in academia and what it would mean for science.

Idea → Funding → Execution → Publication This project shows the full ResearchHub cycle in action. @ALLFEDALLIANCE researchers sought to demonstrate that global catastrophes might not be as far-fetched as they seem, so they studied 63 years of food shock data.🧵 1/10

Should scientists be paid for peer reviewing journal articles?

Update from our partnership with the Center for Open Science: 3 ResearchHub-reviewed preprints have now been fully evaluated and published in the Lifecycle Journal. ResearchHub led the open peer review process, delivering: ✅ Open peer reviews ✅ Fast turnaround (9.5 days on average) ✅ Public scores on rigor, clarity, and reproducibility The Lifecycle Journal uses multiple evaluation services, combining traditional human and AI assessments. All reviews are public. Check out the outcome reports for their first publications: 🔗 lifecycle-flax.fly.dev/journal/articl… 🔗 lifecycle-flax.fly.dev/journal/articl… 🔗 lifecycle-flax.fly.dev/journal/articl…

Why a top scientist with 150+ publications is turning to open science. Join Dr. Brian Kim on X-Spaces this Sunday to find out. x.com/itchdoctor/sta… x.com/i/spaces/1vOGw…

Don't forget to book your spot at the next ICOR meeting focusing on new paradigms in research communication. Speakers and perspectives from: HHMI, ASAPbio, PLoS and ISC. To book your place, register for free through this link: us02web.zoom.us/meeting/regist… x.com/ICOR_OS/status…

PUBLIC MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT: February 27. The meeting will be a continuation of the "Future of Open Science Publishing” workshop held in December. We are seeking wider participation, so please read our latest blog to register and get involved. incentivizingopen.org/2025/02/the-fu…

@MarkHahnel Yes, I agree. It’s an opportunity to demonstrate that great research can thrive in a fair and open process where collegiality and science trump the proxy.

Contrarian take I think Web of Science removing elife’s impact factor will ultimately harm Web of Science I’m sure some researchers won’t submit, but I think most will use it to highlight that impact factor means fa when it comes to publishing great research

We're getting ready to launch MetaROR and make peer review faster, more transparent and more efficient 💪 Join us and @aimos_inc for the official launch of MetaROR (MetaResearch Open Review), a new open platform for reviewing and sharing metaresearch operating with an innovative publish-review-curate model. Launch Events ⬇️

👀ICOR's final public meeting of 2024 on November 13 will focus on aligning best practices for #research metrics and indicators to promote responsible and impactful #ResearchAssessment. 🎯 ☑️Register now: opusproject.eu/openscience-ne… #OpenScience #OpenAccess #OpenResearch

📅 Don't forget to book your spot at the final ICOR meeting of the year where we will focus on the opportunity for community alignment when developing and using research metrics and indicators. Register for free here: incentivizingopen.org/2024/10/harmon…

On November 13, (8am PST, 11am EST, 4pm GMT, 5pm CET) we'll be participating in an ICOR panel discussion: Harmonising Research Metrics and Indicators Across the Ecosystem. Find out more: incentivizingopen.org/2024/10/harmon…. #OpenInfrastructure

Really interesting topic for the next @ICOR_OS meeting, which is geared towards the community coming together to align on good practices for assessment and provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of research quality and impact. x.com/ICOR_OS/status…