Máté Varga

70 Followers
130 Following
339 Posts
Developmental geneticist by training, science-blogger by choice. Interested in all things #zebrafish, #devbio and #scicomm.
CriticalBiomass (HU)https://criticalbiomass.hu
Articles at Qubit (HU)https://qubit.hu/author/dolphin

1/Today, we’re pleased to announce Wellcome funding that will support a new initiative – eLife Pathways – in building an open and collaborative ecosystem for alternative approaches to scholarly communication

https://elifesciences.org/for-the-press/60edaa10/elife-receives-wellcome-boost-to-build-open-publishing-ecosystem?utm_source=mastodon&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic

RE: https://biologists.social/@Co_Biologists/116045841227166472

The deadline for the BiO Global South Travel Grants for #EZM2026 is approaching. Apply by 15 March 2026.
http://ezsociety.org/grants-EZM2026

We are deeply saddened by the death of Alan Wilson. Our thoughts are with his family, friends, collaborators & colleagues.

Alan was a longstanding member of the JEB community & world-leading biomechanist whose work transformed our understanding of human and animal locomotion.

As an author, reviewer, JEB Editorial Board member & Director of The Company of Biologists, Alan’s presence, energy and vision will be profoundly missed.
https://www.biologists.com/stories/a-tribute-to-prof-alan-wilson-frs/

Manet's famous painting Un Bar aux Folies-Bergère never appealed to me. But now I realize its genius, and my spine tingles every time I see it.

The perspective looks all wrong. You're staring straight at this barmaid, but her reflection in the mirror is way off to right. Even worse, her reflection is facing a guy who doesn't appear in the main view!

But in 2000, a researcher showed this perspective is actually possible!!! To prove it, he did a photographic reconstruction of this scene. Check it out in my next post.

This blows my mind.

(1/3)

Nobody on LinkedIn has ever had a bad day. Every setback is a "growth opportunity." Every firing is a "new chapter." Every complete professional disaster is framed as "excited to announce." These people would describe the Titanic as "a bold pivot to submarine operations."
@albertcardona And these journals also charge a lot: APC for innovation is 5000 USD (https://www.the-innovation.org/authors). So for CAS this is not about money, this is not about principle, this is about playing a (for them) zero-sum game on reputation. If it would be on principle, they should just stop paying for APCs charged by commercial publishing houses all together.
The Innovation

@albertcardona While superficially this seems to be a step into the right direction, I think we should not be delusional: CAS is doing this, in part to prop up its own set of journals, which, quite frankly, are not that different. I think an excellent example of this are “Innovation Press” journals (https://www.the-innovation.org/innovation-press/). Formally Cell Press, but not quite. Also its flagship journal “The Innovation” has an impact factor over 30 (!!!), yet I bet most people never heard of it.
INNOVATION PRESS

INNOVATION PRESS

Mastodon now has a button for sharing content from other websites https://www.theverge.com/tech/887791/mastodon-official-share-button-widget
Mastodon now has a button for sharing content from other websites

Mastodon has added a “Share” button that allows users to share content to any Mastodon server, but doesn’t use tracking data or store user info.

The Verge
We need to talk about naked mole rats
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/naked_mole_rats
We need to talk about naked mole rats - The Oatmeal

This is a comic about naked mole rats, aka tube goblins.

The Oatmeal

New version of our preprint on bioRxiv about bioRxiv. Now that’s what I call a revision – 6 years after the first version!

It has new data about our progress and highlights from a massive user survey.

bioRxiv continues to grow – a brief spike and lag in the pandemic (details of which are included) but a steady increase in submissions since then. % revisions, license choice, etc. all fairly constant. 0.1% withdrawal rate is comparable to journal retraction rates.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/833400v2