100 accroches à valider,
sur 100 chercheurs réels

Hi Filippo,

I read your piece on moving from peer review to peer learning. I'm chasing a similar shift: judging work before it's shared turned publishing into the goal, instead of just a step.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Morgan,

I read that you worry charities spend more time readying for peer review than doing their core work. I think any pass-or-fail gate pulls effort toward clearing it, whichever gate you choose.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Carey,

I came across your work as platform and project manager for the swissuniversities Open Science P project.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Christian,

I saw you wrote that the problem with peer review is that it strayed away from its original purpose.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Patrick,

I came across your piece arguing that science should value building research capacity.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi David,

I came across your paper on open, transparent and reproducible data science in clinical research.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Kadija,

I read your piece on how peer review supports the integrity of Toronto Arts Council's operating structure.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Wind,

I came across your point that curation should go beyond mere compliance. I think the same about data: sharing it matters when it strengthens the evidence, not when a rule demands it.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Mann,

I saw you explain the problems facing the Civil Service's science and the peer review process. I'm trying to separate sharing results from judging them, so publishing stops being the finish line itself.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Cristina,

I read that you set up the peer review process for short publications in your field. I keep wondering what changes if that review comes after the work is already shared, so publishing stops being the finish line.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Prachee,

I saw that you work to reimagine how research is shared as Head of Open Science at Astera Institute.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Marco,

I came across your talk "Open Science in practice" with Silvia Corbetta and Maya Fedeli.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Erika,

I came across the piece you wrote on why speed isn't the hallmark of rigorous research ethics.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Andrea,

I came across your scoping review on strategies to prevent or reduce gender bias in peer review of research grants.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Grant,

I read that you spoke with RCR Media about research integrity standards in peer review. I think any pass-or-fail gate, peer review included, ends up rewarding whoever gets through it, whichever gate you pick.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Isabel,

I read your piece on how funders can support improved clinical trial practice for outbreaks. I'm trying to build a system that doesn't judge an outbreak trial by the same yardstick as a collider or a theorem.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Daniel,

I read that your research covers peer review, research integrity, and scientific careers. I'm trying to test what happens when judging comes after sharing, not before, so publishing stops being the goal itself.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Kokil,

I read your paper on attitudes and perceptions toward questionable and open research practices. I treat the gaming it studies as an engineering problem to fix, not a reason to stop measuring.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Julian,

I came across your comment on citing sources and peer review in science.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Rani,

I read your piece on building bridges in open science at Khalifa University Library. I'm trying to flip that order, sharing before judging, so publishing stops being the finish line and becomes just one step.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Donna,

I came across your point that peer review matters even more in biomedicine, since some findings there can be a matter of life and death.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Lissa,

I read about your study on the practices and uses of science and technology policy evaluation. I don't think one yardstick can fit a particle collider, a clinical trial and a theoretical computer science paper alike.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Julie,

I saw you spoke about improving how research gets assessed. I keep thinking the people who'd gain most from a better system are the ones who need three signatures just to follow a hunch.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Ben,

I saw you've contributed to pieces in The Economist, The Scientist and Nature on open science and the challenges of scientific publishing.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Nihaar,

I read that your findings exposed a vulnerability in peer review tied to the constant pressure and time constraints reviewers face.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Morgan,

I read your study on how this system creates perverse incentives, pushing researchers toward quantity over quality.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Gennie,

I read that as a grad student you led the advocacy effort behind the University of Washington's institutional open access policy.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Asad,

I saw you say there's a better way to address peer review circumvention. I started from the same angle: any pass-or-fail gate just rewards getting through it, whichever gate you pick.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Dermot,

I came across your piece, "Understanding Peer Review from Multiple Perspectives," written as Dean of the Peer Review College at the British Academy of Management.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Federica,

I saw you organize seminars and workshops on pre-registration and transparency in research at Milano-Bicocca.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Kieran,

I came across the piece describing your work launching the first LSE Press journal and your role in research assessment and peer review.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Gill,

I saw you're keen for King's to back best practice in open science. I'm trying to flip that order so sharing happens before judging, not after.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Silvia,

I came across your comment on this step mattering for the integrity of peer review. I keep asking why judging research before it's shared became the finish line, instead of just one step among others.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Gary,

I read that you think peer review and publication systems likely need reform. I'm trying to build what could replace them, since nothing in the current system can judge a machine that writes text for free.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Paul,

I read your piece on peer review in paramedicine, owning its imperfections and striving to optimise it. I see those imperfections the same way: an engineering problem to solve, not a reason to stop measuring.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Danny,

I came across your argument that exegetical requirements undercut both the integrity and the potential of artistic research. That matches something I keep seeing: any pass-or-fail gate just rewards getting through it, whatever shape the gate takes.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Emma,

I read your line that the slow decline in animal testing comes down to a publish-or-perish system. I'm convinced any pass-or-fail gate, whichever one you set, just rewards clearing it, animal testing included.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Tobias,

I came across your work on open science and how transparency and integrity might be improved in the scientific system.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Sara,

I just read your paper on program evaluation in urban contexts, questioning how justice gets measured. It struck a chord with the question I've been chasing: how we measure what research actually achieves.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Matthias,

I read your piece on research assessment at the DFG: practices, philosophy, outlook. I keep wondering how one yardstick could judge a particle collider, a clinical trial, and a proof in theoretical computer science alike.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Jon,

I saw you say research impact and the metrics we use to judge it need rethinking.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Kamini,

I read that your work includes strengthening peer review governance at Diabetes UK, among other improvements.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Sanja,

I read that you work on responsible research assessment as a Research and Impact Fellow at Exeter. I'm trying to show that one single measure can't fairly judge a particle collider, a clinical trial, and a proof in theoretical computer science.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Fiona,

You lead a programme embedding Reproducibility by Design into life science research. I think of gaming the same way: an engineering flaw to design around, not a reason to measure less.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Roxana,

I read that you said peer review needs rethinking to be fair and transparent. I think the deeper problem is that any pass-or-fail gate, however well designed, mostly rewards getting through it, not the work itself.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Jasmine,

I came across your line that "publish or perish" runs contrary to the SNSF's funding policy.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Jo,

I came across your call for funders and institutions to offer peer review constructively, drawing on the strength of diversity among researchers.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Emily,

I saw that you advocate for research integrity, in particular reproducible research, as a Postdoctoral Research Officer at Bangor University.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Jonathan,

I came across your advocacy for open access to scientific publications.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Martin,

I came across someone telling you your SPSR platform isn't a peer-reviewed journal, but isn't without value either.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Amal,

You lead UNESCO's section spanning basic science, research and engineering, across many countries. That's exactly the problem I keep hitting: a collider, a clinical trial and a theorem can't share one yardstick.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi René,

I saw that you teach and apply Open Science principles as a guide in your work.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Arne,

I read that you founded AcademicLabs seven years ago to bring transparency to the scientific world.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Forrest,

I read your line on how keeping transmittal and external letters confidential would strengthen peer review.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Shaun,

I saw you've signed DORA, the Declaration on Research Assessment. I don't think one measure can judge a landscape studio the same way it judges a physics lab.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Haley,

I saw that you've given talks on improving research assessment practices at international funding agencies.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Carina,

I saw you recently accepted the role of Associate Director of Research Integrity and Ethics at UWA.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Michael,

I read your comment on how little interest editors show in fighting scientific misconduct.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Greg,

I came across your plan to develop open science into a thriving garden.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Iolanda,

I came across your piece on copyright in the context of open science. I'm trying to shrink the time between finding something and others being free to build on it, from years to days.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Reine,

You served as Vice Rector for Research Policy at KU Leuven from 2017 to 2021, overseeing the university's Open Science direction.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Hassan,

I came across your work on employing peer review to evaluate the quality of student generated content.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Grace,

I saw you're gathering actionable recommendations for the White House's Year of Open Science. One idea I keep pushing: the gap between finding something and someone else building on it should be days, not years.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Rebecca,

I saw your piece explaining what's at stake if peer review is downgraded to an advisory role, and what researchers with active grants can do.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Taichi,

I came across your program’s work on equitable recognition and reward through open science. A citation costs nothing to give and commits nobody, so I’m testing rewards that don’t lean on it.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Freya,

I saw that you work on peer review operations and editorial policy at JMIR Publications.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Matthew,

I read your paper on how the evolution of peer review shapes learner performance in e-learning. I think that same ordering, judging before sharing, is what turns publishing into the goal itself, rather than a step toward learning from each other.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Liam,

I saw you describe your umbrella as LGBTQIA+ rights, LGBTQIA+ researchers, and internal allyship, alongside your work on the Alternative Law Journal's editorial board.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Padma,

I read that as Vice Provost for Research at Vanderbilt, you said you're committed to research integrity and advancing U.S. interests.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Megan,

You lead Arcadia's push to make research communications more expedient, transparent and useful. I keep asking why the gap between finding something and someone else building on it should ever be more than a few days.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Kristin,

I read your line on how publish or perish pushes teaching into a distant second.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Marc,

I heard the University of Wollongong podcast episode where you talk about peer review and its importance in scientific research.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Jill,

I read that you run strict peer review to keep research credible across partisan lines. I'm trying to show that any pass-or-fail gate, however strict, ends up rewarding whoever gets through it, not the credibility it's meant to protect.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Ahmad,

I saw that you agreed with the decision to retract one of your papers.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Carol,

I came across your 2017 AABC editorial with Lima on the problem of predatory journals.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Patricia,

I read that you worked on the Basel III framework and led a peer review assessment of the European Union's adoption.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Lorna,

I saw you signed the Declaration on Research Assessment, DORA.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Vishnu,

I read your piece on optimizing research publication for nurse researchers through integrity and the submission process. It makes me wonder if any gate placed before publication just teaches people to clear that gate, whichever one you pick.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Qi,

I came across your work addressing continual domain adaptation and research integrity issues. I treat gaming the system as an engineering problem to fix, not a reason to stop measuring at all.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Ira,

I came across your analysis of the factors that shape peer review outcomes at NCI.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Perkins,

I came across your work on an ethical and technical framework for web data extraction and research integrity.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Abby,

I read about the article you co-authored with two graduate students on the ChatGPT-based peer-review system.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Andrea,

I saw you write that real peer review by reputable referees takes at least six to eight weeks.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Tom,

I came across your work on creating a research culture for open access monographs at Lancaster University.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Andrew,

I read that in your new role, you called peer review essential to keep research honest. I'm testing what happens when no single gate decides that, since any pass-or-fail gate ends up rewarding whoever gets through it, not whoever deserves to.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Sean,

I read that your goal is to strengthen research integrity and compliance at LSU.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Laoise,

I came across your work leading Galway's Open Science assessment reform initiative. I'm trying to build something that doesn't force a collider, a clinical trial and a line of code through the same yardstick.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Derejaw,

I read that you spoke about the importance of rigorous peer review for the integrity of scientific publications. It makes me wonder if judging work before it is shared is what turned publishing into the goal, rather than a step.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Emmanuelle,

I saw you signed DORA, pushing back on journal metrics as a stand-in for merit. I'm trying to go further: counting how much attention a result gets is still not the same as counting what it actually changed.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Marina,

I saw you lead peer review quality and integrity work at PCORI. I'm testing what happens when judgment comes after sharing results, not before, so publishing stops being the finish line.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Tomi,

I came across your phrase on executable papers, sharing and evaluating data, methods and results together. I keep imagining a system where the gap between finding something and someone building on it is days, not years.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Rod,

I read your piece on how inane criticism of 'absurd' research leaves no one the winner. A system that lets researchers get burned that way, for work no one bothered to understand, feels like it was badly designed from the start.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Alison,

I read your line that open science, done wrong, will compound inequities. I think sharing data only helps when it strengthens someone's evidence, not when a rule forces it.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Elodie,

I came across your piece, "Peer review, from the perspective of a frustrated scientist." I think the deeper issue is that any pass-or-fail gate ends up rewarding people for getting through it, whichever gate you pick.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Tatiana,

I read your paper on faculty perspectives on AI and academic integrity among undergraduate students.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Claire,

I saw that you lead policy on how metrics are used to evaluate research. It made me think: counting how much attention a result draws isn't the same as counting whether it moved an idea forward.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Anelda,

I read your piece calling research software the neglected part of open science. I'm trying to build a way of judging work that doesn't squeeze a software tool, a trial, and a theorem into one yardstick.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Benoît,

I read that you're skeptical about where peer review is headed. I think the trouble starts when judgment comes before sharing: that's what turned publishing into the goal instead of a step.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Bonnie,

I read that CESSDA ERIC works to make large-scale research data accessible while balancing open science with protecting sensitive data.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium

Hi Huajin,

I saw that you work at Carnegie Mellon's University Libraries, advocating for transparency and reproducibility through open science initiatives.

Forgive me for writing out of the blue, but I did research too, as an engineering student, until I learned that a career is not built on doing the work properly, but on telling a good story in a prestigious journal... I never got over it.

So I wrote a manifesto. It calls for a new institution, shared across scientific funders and independent of publishers, to test better ways of rewarding curiosity.

It starts from something simple: a fifth of a researcher's time goes into writing funding proposals, and nearly half into administration, for work whose direction the first months will change anyway.

I want to count something other than papers and citations: what a result actually changed in how credible other researchers found an idea. Evidence against an idea then counts as much as evidence for it.

It would mean a great deal to have you endorse it. May I send it over and hear what you make of it?

PS: I am not asking you to endorse anything yet. What I would really like is your view on the idea itself.

Mathïs Fédérico, Bycelium