Matthieu Boisgontier

Publishing in a journal means endorsing it.
Where you publish reflects your values.
Choose wisely.
doi.org/10.52057/erj...

Author publishes 118 articles in January 2026 and every article is in an IEEE journal.

I recently posted about the most prolific authors in the first month of 2026, considering just articles (Scopus type = 'ar").
🧵

Guest Post — Diamond Open Access Needs Institutions, Not Heroes - The Scholarly Kitchen Today's guest blogger asks: What would it mean to support community-led publishing as infrastructure, rather than as a collection of heroic individual efforts?

Think of all the money research funders have poured into the maw of the Big Five publishers, paying for APCs instead of funding diamond #openaccess infrastructure, what a shame! scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2026/02/18/g... "Open access needs institutions not heroes"

If you want to keep up to date with the latest news and events from the Irish Reproducibility Network, click on the link and join the mailing list!
irishrn.org
#irishResearch #openResearch

The cost of dichotomization in clinical trials. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/AKCWNT...

An image reading the statement "The Future is Diamond" alongside the logo of the Open Journals Collective.

We've officially launched! With our new #DiamondOpenAccess investment campaign to help libraries build a sustainable, community‑led future for scholarly publishing & support journals flipping away from costly subscription models. Read the Press release here drive.google.com/file/d/10Hgf...

Rejecting another Elsevier review request. Hoping my attempt at a dispassionate tone keeps my contempt for Elsevier from leaking through.

feedback welcome (new section in my lab manual on use of AI tools)
github.com/paulgribble/...

Too many meta-analyses have findings equivalent to: “If you average the cost of a loaf of bread, car insurance for a year and a movie ticket, you get $752.36”

How to read ‘evidence pyramids’ To get past the pointless bit of the arguments

Everyone please red this and then vigorously attack @timpmorris.bsky.social 😜

tpmorris.substack.com/p/how-to-rea...

We've got ISSUES. Literally.

We scraped >100k special issues & over 1 million articles to bring you a PISS-poor paper. We quantify just how many excess papers are published by guest editors abusing special issues to boost their CVs. How bad is it & what can we do?

arxiv.org/abs/2601.07563

A 🧵 1/n

Too many significance tests!!

Made this little graphic for my #stats class, showing the various kinds of (N)HST and how interpreting confidence intervals can replace all of them.

Made with #rstats #ggplot (duh)

Medical breakthroughs in 2025 ... and a happy new year.

New post!

There was a lot of innovation in medicine and biomedical research this year, and I've tried to summarize the biggest ones in this blogpost.

Medical breakthroughs in 2025. Plus a serious note at the end.
www.scientificdiscovery.dev/p/medical-br...

Just quit Quitting projects in science is hard, but we should be doing a lot more of it.

Blog post: Just quit
Quitting projects in science is hard, but we should be doing a lot more of it.

open.substack.com/pub/arjunraj...

More than half of researchers now use AI for peer review — often against guidance A survey of 1,600 academics found that more than 50% have used artificial-intelligence tools while peer reviewing manuscripts.

Just decline the peer review invitation.

What are you people even doing?

Food for thought publishers! All of the major submission platforms support @orcid.org reviewer credit... #researchsky

The point is that most papers we all write are incremental -- based on well established methods and ideas -- and have an audience of subfield experts. These are judged by expert colleagues when they read the work. These don't, in my view, need traditional peer review.

Postdoc (and PhD) opportunity in my lab. www.linkedin.com/posts/matthi...

Should we also require open raw data & code for preprints? This would improve protection against AI-generated manuscripts. There should of course be exceptions for sensitive data, with justifications required.

A better approach is to build the capacity of presses in libraries, UPs, scholar-led pubs, overlays, etc. This will take money but will allow a better kind of publishing to flourish in places that need it, so you'll change the argument from being about cost-saving towards a more ethical ecosystem.

I’m not sure who needs to hear this but RCTs are a tool in our scientific tool kit. It’s a powerful tool but things “go wrong” in RCTs with randomization, primary outcomes (yes you can do secondary analyses), intention to treat etc. RCTs, prospective, observational all have a role to play in science

A new ⭐ Editor's Choice ⭐ explores the complex relationships between depressive symptoms, pain, physical activity, and function in patients with arthritis.

academic.oup.com/ptj/advance-...

New diamond open access journal Replication Research welcomes reports of replication of previous works. #AcademicChatter
https://www.uni-muenster.de/Ejournals/index.php/replicationresearch/index

So stimulating & such a pleasure to work w/ these geniuses. Took only 11 versions to get us all aligned and agree on one call to action to stop the drain.
What we all agreed on right away: this push needs to happen via strong funder and institutional policies w/out for-profit publisher interference

What is the most profitable industry in the world, this side of the law? Not oil, not IT, not pharma.

It's *scientific publishing*.

We call this the Drain of Scientific Publishing.

Paper: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Background: doi.org/10.1162/qss_...

Thread @markhanson.fediscience.org.ap.brid.gy 👇

Youyou Tu's work on anti-malarial compounds that saved millions of lives (w/Nobel+Lasker recognition) wins the low citation/huge impact cell. The original paper has 87 citations as of today: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11721477/ Hopefully she can get to 100.

What for huge citations and moderate impact?

Gaming the peer review system: a sophisticated review mill in medicine highlights the need to ensure reviewer integrity Background A review mill is a network of researchers who game the peer review system to apparently boost their citations. Members write generic review reports containing suggestions for citations to t...

New pre-print out on peer-review milling! Together with @deevybee.bsky.social and M. Angeles Oviedo Garcia.

Enjoy!

doi.org/10.1101/2025...

«Pourquoi l'économie de l'édition scientifique a besoin d'une réforme urgente»

📚Ce texte de @stefhaustein.scholcommlab.ca souligne les travers du modèle économique de la publication savante et propose 13 mesures pour y remédier.

📌 shorturl.at/g5Zel

#ScholCommLab #ScholComm #ScholarlyPublishing

i agree. Problem is that peer review is not geared up for detection of fabricated data. Sadly I think we need to be more alert to this. Inclusion of raw data v helpful in this case - and the discrepancies in age hit you as soon as you open the file. But deposited data should be .csv! @bmj.com