Scholarly Journals – Page 3

Paywall: "The Scientific Periphery and New Flows of Knowledge: The Case of Regional Preprint Servers"

It is unclear whether regional rather than global or discipline-focussed preprint platforms as an innovation in the communication of science are removing any of the barriers faced by researchers in the scientific periphery or whether they are increasing access to and visibility of science from the periphery. In response, this paper focusses on the uptake, visibility and academic impact of regional preprint publishing platforms in two peripheral regions (Africa and Latin America) to gain insights into the use and possible impact of regional preprint servers.

https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2023-0153

"DIAMAS Results: Institutional Publishing Landscape Survey"

The publication of the survey results marks a significant milestone for DIAMAS and for Diamond Open Access. There is now a clear and intelligible picture of the European landscape of institutional publishing activities, with clear pathways to strengthen and support their operations. Our findings show how institutional publishers work, the scale of and nature of their operations, the ways finances and funding are managed, how open science practices are managed, and the nature of their challenges.

http://tinyurl.com/y3crvx8p

"Could AI Change the Scientific Publishing Market Once and for All?"

Artificial-intelligence tools in research like ChatGPT are playing an increasingly transformative role in revolutionizing scientific publishing and re-shaping its economic background. They can help academics to tackle such issues as limited space in academic journals, accessibility of knowledge, delayed dissemination, or the exponential growth of academic output. Moreover, AI tools could potentially change scientific communication and academic publishing market as we know them. They can help to promote Open Access (OA) in the form of preprints, dethrone the entrenched journals and publishers, as well as introduce novel approaches to the assessment of research output. It is also imperative that they should do just that, once and for all.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.14952

"Librarians as Agents of Change: New Sparc Europe Strategy for Open Education 2024-2026"

We are pleased to announce a new Open Education strategy for 2024-2026, Librarians as Agents of Change. We will support Higher Education policymakers, librarians, ambassadors and facilitators of OE in Europe to implement the UNESCO OER Recommendations using a targeted and action-oriented approach. With this strategy, we aim to make the many connections between Open Science policy and Open Education ever clearer to both policymakers and academic institutions.

http://tinyurl.com/mr45cv3f

Ithaka S+R: The Second Digital Transformation of Scholarly Publishing

Today, the scholarly publishing sector is undergoing its second digital transformation. The first digital transformation saw a massive shift from paper to digital, but otherwise publishing retained many of the structures, workflows, incentives, and outputs that characterized the print era. A variety of shared infrastructure was developed to serve the needs of this first digital transformation. In this current second digital transformation, many of the structures, workflows, incentives, and outputs that characterized the print era are being revamped in favor of new approaches that bring tremendous opportunities, and also non-trivial risks, to scholarly communication. The second digital transformation requires shared infrastructure that is fit for purpose. It is our objective with this paper to examine the needs for shared infrastructure that will support this second digital transformation.

https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.320210

"Open-Access Papers Draw More Citations from a Broader Readership"

Now, after years of little conclusive evidence to support these assertions, researchers report that open-access papers have a greater reach than paywalled ones in two key ways: They attract more total citations, and those citations come from scholars in a wider range of locations, institutions, and fields of research. The study also reports a "citation diversity advantage" for a controversial type of open-access article, those deposited in "green" public repositories.

http://tinyurl.com/27p6pfje

"Science’s Fake-Paper Problem: High-Profile Effort Will Tackle Paper Mills"

A high-profile group of funders, academic publishers and research organizations has launched an effort to tackle one of the thorniest problems in scientific integrity: paper mills, businesses that churn out fake or poor-quality journal papers and sell authorships. In a statement released on 19 January, the group outlines how it will address the problem through measures such as closely studying paper mills, including their regional and topic specialties, and improving author-verification methods.

http://tinyurl.com/2nxt93h4

"Digital Scholarly Journals Are Poorly Preserved: A Study of 7 Million Articles"

This work reveals an alarming preservation deficit. Only 0.96% of Crossref members (n = 204) can be confirmed to digitally preserve over 75% of their content in three or more of the archives that we studied. (Note that when, in this article, we write "preserved," we mean "that we were able to confirm as preserved," as per the specified limitations of this study.) A slightly larger proportion, i.e., 8.5% (n = 1,797), preserved over 50% of their content in two or more archives. However, many members, i.e., 57.7% (n = 12,257), only met the threshold of having 25% of their material in a single archive. Most worryingly, 32.9% (n = 6,982) of Crossref members seem not to have any adequate digital preservation in place, which is against the recommendations of the Digital Preservation Coalition.

https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.16288

"Determinants of Manuscript Submissions to Fully Open Access Journals: Elasticity to Article Processing Charges"

Article processing charges that authors and research institutions pay to make articles open access are increasing. If manuscript submission is price elastic, then rising charges will cause a significant reduction in submissions, leading to decreased revenues under constant acceptance rates. Therefore, the elasticity of manuscript submission to article processing charge is one of the determinants of publishers’ charges. However, several studies that investigated the determinants of article processing charges did not consider this elasticity. This study investigated the determinants of submissions, including the elasticity to article processing charge, by formulating the number of manuscript submissions to fully open access journals published by Hindawi and Elsevier in 2022. Moreover, this study formulated manuscript submissions using both list prices and charges paid to Elsevier that OpenAPC collected to compare the results. The estimation results reveal that the two publishers increase their revenues by raising the article processing charges due to the inelasticity. Moreover, these conclusions do not depend on the data set used, although the number of observations sourced from OpenAPC is small.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04934-3

"Promotion of Scientific Publications on ArXiv and X Is on the Rise and Impacts Citations"

Here, based on a large dataset of computer science publications, we study trends in the use of early preprint publications and revisions on ArXiv and the use of X (formerly Twitter) for promotion of such papers in the last 10 years. We find that early submission to ArXiv and promotion on X have soared in recent years. Estimating the effect that the use of each of these modern affordances has on the number of citations of scientific publications, we find that in the first 5 years from an initial publication peer-reviewed conference papers submitted early to ArXiv gain on average 21.1±17.4 more citations, revised on ArXiv gain 18.4±17.6 more citations, and promoted on X gain 44.4±8 more citations. Our results show that promoting one’s work on ArXiv or X has a large impact on the number of citations, as well as the number of influential citations computed by Semantic Scholar, and thereby on the career of researchers. We discuss the far-reaching implications of these findings for future scientific publishing systems and measures of scientific impact.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11116

"Launch of Scopus AI to Help Researchers Navigate the World of Research "

Scopus AI is based on Scopus’ trusted content from over 27,000 academic journals, from more than 7,000 publishers worldwide, with over 1.8 billion citations, and includes over 17 million author profiles. Scopus content is vetted by an independent board of world-renowned scientists and librarians who represent the major scientific disciplines.

Since the alpha launch in August 2023, thousands of researchers across the world have tested Scopus AI. Their feedback has reinforced that, as generative AI evolves, researchers want trustworthy, cited research that is relevant and highly personalized to their needs.

Feedback from the research community has led to Scopus AI offering the following powerful features:

Expanded and Enhanced Summaries that provide researchers with fast overviews of key topics that they can dig deeper into, sometimes even highlighting gaps in literature. . . .

Foundational and Influential Papers that enable researchers to rapidly pinpoint seminal works, navigating academic progress and impact with precision and ease.

Academic Expert Search identifies leading experts in their fields and provides explanations of their expertise relevant to the user’s query, helping save time.

Enhanced breadth of research, covering ten years of Scopus content to support well-rounded perspective on topics of interest, and improved design to enhance the user experience.

http://tinyurl.com/22f78hv6

Paywall: "Can ChatGPT Identify Predatory Biomedical and Dental Journals? A Cross-Sectional Content Analysis"

ChatGPT may effectively distinguish between predatory and legitimate journals, with accuracy rates of 92.5% and 71%, respectively. The potential utility of large-scale language models in exposing predatory publications is worthy of further consideration.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104840

"Towards a Quality Indicator for Research Data Publications and Research Software publications — A Vision from the Helmholtz Association"

Research data and software are widely accepted as an outcome of scientific work. However, in comparison to text-based publications, there is not yet an established process to assess and evaluate quality of research data and research software publications. This paper presents an attempt to fill this gap. Initiated by the Working Group Open Science of the Helmholtz Association the Task Group Helmholtz Quality Indicators for Data and Software Publications currently develops a quality indicator for research data and research software publications to be used within the Association. This report summarizes the vision of the group of what all contributes to such an indicator. The proposed approach relies on generic well-established concepts for quality criteria, such as the FAIR Principles and the COBIT Maturity Model. It does — on purpose — not limit itself to technical implementation possibilities to avoid using an existing metric for a new purpose. The intention of this paper is to share the current state for further discussion with all stakeholders, particularly with other groups also working on similar metrics but also with entities that use the metrics.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08804

"Applying Librarian Created Evaluation Tools to Determine Quality and Credibility of Open Access Library Science Journals"

The researchers investigate quality and credibility attributes of fortyeight peer-reviewed library science journals with open access components using two evaluative tools developed and published by librarians. . . . Overall, the results show that while library science journals do not fall prey to the same concerning characteristics that librarians use to caution other researchers, there are several areas in which publishers can improve the quality and credibility of their journals.

https://tinyurl.com/4yydkckw

| Research Data Publication and Citation Bibliography | Research Data Sharing and Reuse Bibliography | Research Data Curation and Management Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

"Where Did the Open Access Movement Go Wrong?: An Interview with Richard Poynder"

Open access was intended to solve three problems that have long blighted scholarly communication — the problems of accessibility, affordability, and equity. 20+ years after the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) we can see that the movement has signally failed to solve the latter two problems. And with the geopolitical situation deteriorating solving the accessibility problem now also looks to be at risk. The OA dream of "universal open access" remains a dream and seems likely to remain one.

https://tinyurl.com/fcxj5ew2

How did the three foundational statements about open access (the Budapest Open Access Initiative, the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities) actually define it?

Current State and Future Directions for Open Repositories in Europe

In January 2023, OpenAIRE, LIBER, SPARC Europe, and COAR launched a joint strategy aimed at strengthening the European repository network. As a first step, a survey of the European repository landscape was undertaken in February-March 2023. The survey found that, collectively, European repositories acquire, preserve and provide open access to tens or possibly hundreds of millions of valuable research outputs and represent critical, not-for-profit infrastructure in the European open science landscape. They are used for sharing articles that may be pay-walled in published journals, but also for providing access to a large variety of other types of research outputs including research data, theses/dissertations, conference papers, preprints, code, and so on.

However, in order to ensure the European repository network is fit for purpose and able to support the evolving needs of the research community, the survey also identified three areas in particular that could be strengthened: maintaining up-to-date, highly functioning software platforms; applying consistent and comprehensive good practices in terms of metadata, preservation, and usage statistics; and gaining appropriate visibility in the scholarly ecosystem.

Despite the challenges, the current climate offers exciting opportunities for repositories. Many funders are actively promoting the repository route for articles because of their role in supporting equitable access to content (i.e. no fees to access or deposit). The value proposition for open science is growing and repositories are increasingly recognised as the main mechanism for collecting and providing access to a wide range of other research outputs. Add to this, the nascent, but growing, interest in the publish-review-curate model in which repositories have a central function, and it seems they are well placed to expand their current role in the ecosystem.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10255559

STM: "New White Paper Launch: Generative AI in Scholarly Communications"

The paper looks at the ethical, legal, and practical aspects of GenAI, highlighting its potential to transform scholarly communications, and covers a range of topics from intellectual property rights to the challenges of maintaining integrity in the digital age. The paper provides best-practice principles and recommendations for authors, editorial teams, reviewers, and vendors, ensuring a responsible and ethical approach to the use of GenAI tools.

https://tinyurl.com/4m6m8n9j

MIT: "New White Paper ‘Access to Science and Scholarship: Key Questions about the Future of Research Publishing’"

The project—including MIT Press’s Director and Publisher Amy Brand and Director of Journals and Open Access Nick Lindsay—examines the current state of the research enterprise and what might come next. . . .

To illustrate how researcher behavior, funder policies, and publisher business models and incentives interact, part 1 of this report presents an historical overview of open access publishing. Part 2 of the report provides a list of key questions for further investigation to understand, measure, and best prepare for the impact of new policies related to open access in research publishing, categorized into six general areas: access and business models, research data, preprint publishing, peer review, costs to researchers and universities, and infrastructure.

https://tinyurl.com/2s3fb7n8

Two Reports on Scientific Publishing from the International Science Council

The Council’s studies led to development of eight essential principles for modern scientific publication, which were endorsed by over 90% of the membership present at its 2021 General Assembly. The principles are listed in Paper One, The Key Principles for Scientific Publishing accompanied by an analysis of the extent to which they are observed operationally. . . .

Paper Two, The case for reform of scientific publishing, identifies many of the failures to observe the principles in Paper One as lying within the commercial sector of scientific publication. It lies not only in so-called predatory publishing, where lax or non-existent editorial standards provide a low barrier to publication, but also in journals that, although they have far higher standards, compromise the essential global distribution of scientific knowledge by excessive prices and profit margins.

International Science Council members include 45 international scientific Unions and Associations, over 140 national and regional scientific organizations, and other organizations.

https://tinyurl.com/mnavvrxt

Richard Poynder Is "Signing Off from Reporting on Open Access"

On X, well-known independent journalist and blogger Richard Poynder said: "The movement has failed and is being rebranded in order to obscure the failure. Time to move on."

In a second post, he provided a further explanation (this is an JPEG file).

Richard Poynder has made 71,000 posts on X/Twitter.

"ResearchGate and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Announce New Journal Home Partnership for Science Partner Journals"

AAAS, a leading publisher of cutting-edge research renowned for its Science family of journals, launched its Science Partner Journal (SPJ) program in 2017. Consisting of 14 high-quality, fully open access journals produced in collaboration with international research institutions, foundations, funders, and societies, the SPJ program will now expand its reach through Journal Home on ResearchGate. . . .

ResearchGate will create dedicated journal profiles on the platform that will be prominently featured on all associated articles and touchpoints on ResearchGate, significantly boosting the visibility of these titles with highly relevant authors and readers.

Authors of articles in the SPJs will enjoy the added benefit of having their content automatically added to their profiles on ResearchGate.

https://tinyurl.com/53ehxhzu

Germany: "DEAL Consortium and Wiley Sign New 5-Year Open Access Agreement"

The DEAL Consortium and scholarly publisher Wiley today announced the signing of a new five-year agreement which will allow scientists from German academic institutions to publish their research open access (OA) within Wiley’s portfolio of scientific journals. Instituted by the Alliance of German Science Organizations the DEAL Consortium is open to more than 900 mostly publicly funded academic institutions in Germany. Signed by Wiley and MPDL Services gGmbH as the DEAL Operating Entity, the new agreement will begin in January 2024, offering further support for the needs of the scholarly community and accelerate the open access transformation.

https://tinyurl.com/3f3kn4zp

"’On the Ruins of Seriality’: The Scientific Journal and the Nature of the Scientific Life"

The serialization of scientific print began around 1800 as an effort to challenge elite science and to make knowledge accessible to broader publics. Over the course of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the scientific journal developed into the central institution of knowledge legitimization, bound up with discourses of objectivity, vocational dedication, and communal virtue. Since the last few decades, however, the journal has been at the heart of crisis narratives that warn of the erosion of science’s moral basis and creative capacity. Competition, careerism, and perverse incentives—reflected in and produced by the serial format—have left the scientific self without a sense of calling, the "scientific community" without a sense of community, and the general public of science without a sense of trust. Twenty-first-century science finds itself "on the ruins of seriality" (Lerner, 2015, p. 132).

Yet there have hardly been any attempts to reimagine scholarly communication without the journal in a central position.²⁴ Notwithstanding vigorous debate on its (de)merits and intense experimentation with peer review and open publishing platforms, the scientific journal has proven to be a "sticky" institution. . . . And although in the digital world the journal’s constitutive nature as a serial format is becoming less and less relevant, it is still primarily the paper—as the base unit of scientific publication—that conditions the modalities of scientific research, writing, and reading, and orients conceptions of scholarly selfhood in both the scientific and the general culture.

The commercial publishers have also demonstrated their stickiness. The open access movement has posed a serious challenge, but all in all the publishing companies have been able to integrate demands for "openness" into their business models (just as the scientific societies were able to adapt to the rise of commercial publishing in the postwar period). . . . So, despite predictions that "networked brains" would revolutionize scientific communication and produce "an unprecedented public good" (Guédon, 2017), open access has essentially come to mean "pay to publish," that is, a return to the situation before the ascendancy of the subscription journal (see also Noel, 2020).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.endeavour.2023.100885

"Scientists Paid Large Publishers over $1 Billion in Four Years to Have Their Studies Published with Open Access"

Stefanie Haustein’s team from the University of Ottawa (Canada) has spent "years" collecting data from the period 2015-2018. According to their calculations, Springer Nature took the lion’s share, with $589.7 million, followed by Elsevier ($221.4 million), Wiley ($114.3 million), Taylor & Francis ($76.8 million), and Sage ($31.6 million). . . .

Haustein’s study reveals that two scientific journals, Scientific Reports and Nature Communications, accounted for this income, with $105.1 million and $71.1 million, respectively.

"AI for Academia: Digital Science Acquires Writefull to Empower Researchers and Publishers"

Writefull’s AI language models are trained on billions of sentences taken from millions of journal articles. Matched with a firm commitment to data privacy, this means its models offer unparalleled assistance to users in academic writing, paraphrasing, copy editing and revisions. . . .

Writefull’s language services are now used by students and researchers at more than 1,500 institutions, and are integrated into the workflows of top publishers and copy editors, such as at the American Chemical Society (ACS), Hindawi, the British Ecological Society, Sage, and the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC). Writefull’s APIs are also integrated with Digital Science’s collaborative LaTeX editor Overleaf.

https://tinyurl.com/ywyap23p