Scholarly Communication

“The Imminent AI Bubble Crash (and Why It Won’t Matter in the Long Run)”

The genuine, lasting AI revolution will most likely happen after the shakeout—when the companies that survive (or those founded after the crash) develop sustainable models instead of depending on speculative capital injections. . . . We must accept two truths:

There is an AI bubble.

In the long term, AI will transform society.

Hedge fund icon Ray Dalio puts it succinctly: “There’s a major new technology that certainly will change the world and be successful, but some people are confusing that with the investments being successful.”

https://tinyurl.com/2dmxyhrm

Repository Team Leader (Enlighten Services) at University of Glasgow

In this role you will ensure delivery of all operational aspects of the University of Glasgow’s open repositories, notably ‘Enlighten: Publications’, ‘Enlighten: Theses’, ‘Enlighten: Dissertations’, and ‘EdShare’, Glasgow’s open educational resources repository. Your oversight of these services and their adherence to quality research output description will support essential operational research functions at the institution and play a key role in contributing to a culture of continuous improvement within the Team.

https://tinyurl.com/mrayvczm

Paywall: “The Geospatial Data User Experience: Examining Approaches and Challenges in Canadian Academic Libraries”

In the summer of 2024, the researchers conducted six semi-structured interviews with library staff members at six Canadian institutions. . . about their geospatial data management practices and priorities. This research outlines the systems, strategies, and approaches taken at these institutions related to the tasks of curating, managing, distributing, or supporting the use of geospatial data. Analysis of the interview transcripts revealed common challenges among the institutions, such as accounting for a variety of expertise levels among users, as well as insufficient data discovery infrastructure, funding, and staff capacity.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15420353.2025.2572683

Electronic Resources Access Librarian at University of Chicago

Reporting to the Head of Electronic Resources Management, the Electronic Resources Access Librarian will play a critical role in overseeing and supporting the discovery, access, and management of electronic resources by creating and maintaining intuitive, accurate, and stable access to extensive online collections across library discovery systems.

https://apply.interfolio.com/177490

“Elicitation Of Requirements and Development of Production Workflows for Accessible Diamond Open Access Publications”

As accessibility requirements impact scholarly communication, Diamond Open Access (DOA) publishing faces specific challenges in meeting compliance and technical standards while having limited budgets. This article examines how accessibility can be integrated into DOA workflows through the use of single-source publishing. Drawing on a requirements analysis conducted within the OS-APS, this paper outlines a framework for embedding accessibility features, from metadata handling and alt-text integration to responsive output formats, into a streamlined publication suite. Legal mandates (e.g., European Accessibility Act), technical standards (e.g., PDF/UA, WCAG), and stakeholder feedback shaped the design of OS-APS. The project identified and implemented key accessibility functions such as structural tagging, language detection, and an accessible reader. OS-APS exports now support PDF/UA, HTML, EPUB, and XML outputs. While some limitations remain, particularly in AI-assisted alt-text generation, this paper presents a viable and promising model for integrating accessibility “by design” into DOA publishing workflows.

https://tinyurl.com/2kmuwpfj

Elsevier: Researcher of the Future* — a Confidence in Research Report*

This report reflects the voices of more than 3,000 researchers worldwide. Their insights reveal resilience, collaboration across borders and an unwavering commitment to integrity, even under growing pressure. They also show optimism about how AI can accelerate discovery — provided researchers have the right support, and tools that are built on quality, transparency and trust. . . .

Most (58%) say AI tools save them time, but are selective about where they see greatest impact. Researchers currently use AI tools to:

Find and summarize the latest research (61%)

Perform literature reviews (51%)

Analyze research data (38%)

Draft grant proposals (41%)

Draft research papers or reports (38%). . . .

Despite the challenges, peer review remains the cornerstone of research integrity. Researchers emphasize the need for trust markers to strengthen confidence in research and AI tools alike:

Transparency and clear citations (59%)

Recency of data and inclusion of up-to-date literature (55%)

Training on high-quality, peer-reviewed content (55%)

Regular human validation of AI outputs (49%)

https://tinyurl.com/3jfcvvv7

“Review of Interactive Open-Access Publishing with Community-Based Open Peer Review for Improved Scientific Discourse and Quality Assurance”

Scientific discourse and quality assurance can be improved by open-access (OA) publishing with public peer review and community discussion. Over 25 years, the viability of this approach has been proven by the interactive OA journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP) and 18 other journals published by the European Geosciences Union (EGU) and its scientific service provider Copernicus Publications. The success of the EGU journals reflects the benefits of community-driven, interactive OA publishing, including high scientific quality and impact, efficient self-regulation, low cost, and financial sustainability. Since 2001, the EGU has published over 50 000 journal articles, 60 000 preprints and 250 000 comments, utilizing and integrating different OA financing models (green, gold, diamond/platinum). The EGU journals with multi-stage open peer review are linked to the OA repository and interactive community platform EGUsphere and to the virtual scientific highlight magazine EGU Letters, integrating different levels of scientific communication and exchange. The EGU publications combine multiple features of open science, including different forms of open peer review and community evaluation with open-access, open data and open-source elements tailored to the needs and preferences of different disciplines. Indeed, the EGU pioneering approach to transparent peer review has spread to other leading publishers, including the Nature publishing group. We review the approach, achievements and future perspectives of interactive OA publishing (including transformative/institutional agreements and AI/ML tools) and its contribution to a universal epistemic web that captures the scientific discourse and comprehensively documents what we know, how well we know it and where the limitations are.

https://tinyurl.com/ypkk7upm

“Scholarly Communication Work: On the Ground Perspectives”

This survey investigates the experiences of scholarly communication workers in North America, with a total of 282 responses. Previous studies on scholarly communication work in academic libraries have tended to focus on organizational structure and necessary competencies. This study aims to put the focus back on workers’ own experiences on the job, to better understand the contributing factors to burnout and attrition that can arise for those in these positions. Five main areas are investigated: newness of the position, scope of the work, support and resources, feelings of one’s expertise being unvalued or dismissed, and the impact of administration. The study concludes with recommendations for library administrators on how to fortify a more sustainable environment for scholarly communication workers.

https://tinyurl.com/435a8ewd

Digital Imaging Specialist at Purdue University (Term)

The purpose of this position is to collaborate on a five-year project to digitize the Neil A. Armstrong papers and ensure the project goals are met within its timeframe. The Armstrong papers contain over 200 cubic feet of personal papers of renowned astronaut and Purdue alumnus, Neil A. Armstrong, best known for his role in the Gemini and Apollo space programs as well as being the first person to step foot on the moon.

https://tinyurl.com/txrh5vpc

“Guest Post — The Great Pullback: Why Academic Social Media’s Fragmentation Matters”

The survey found that 67% of regular social media users had reduced their time on the platforms, with many abandoning X and Facebook entirely. The reasons are familiar: toxicity, declining professional value, and algorithmic changes that deprioritize academic content.

Nearly half of respondents (49%) said these platforms had become too hostile for meaningful academic exchange, discouraging participation in debates and making it harder to discover new work. As one put it, “As the quality of X has declined, I have used it less. Unfortunately, none of the alternatives is sufficiently populated by colleagues to be useful to me.”

https://tinyurl.com/2nywzmzj

“Shifting Norms in Scholarly Publications: Trends in Readability, Objectivity, Authorship, and AI Use”

Academic and scientific publishing practices have changed significantly in recent years. This paper presents an analysis of 17 million research papers published since 2000 to explore changes in authorship and content practices. It shows a clear trend towards more authors, more references and longer abstracts. While increased authorship has been reported elsewhere, the present analysis shows that it is pervasive across many major fields of study. We also identify a decline in author productivity which suggests that `gift’ authorship (the inclusion of authors who have not contributed significantly to a work) may be a significant factor. We further report on a tendency for authors to use more hyperbole, perhaps exaggerating their contributions to compete for the limited attention of reviewers, and often at the expense of readability. This has been especially acute since 2023, as AI has been increasingly used across many fields of study, but particularly in fields such as Computer Science, Engineering and Business. In summary, many of these changes are causes of significant concern. Increased authorship counts and gift authorship have the potential to distort impact metrics such as field-weighted citation impact andh-index, while increased AI usage may compromise readability and objectivity.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.21725

Paywall: “Strengthening Research Support: Scholarly Communication Training for Liaison Librarians”

The study involved creating 16 OARs tailored to specific academic disciplines, utilizing a combination of free and subscription resources to compile data on publishing practices and citation insights. Surveys conducted before and after the dissemination of the reports evaluated the impact on librarians’ knowledge and confidence levels. The findings suggest that developing scholarly communication literacy among liaison librarians can improve their confidence and effectiveness in supporting faculty publishing practices. The collaboration between liaison librarians and the Scholarly Communications Librarian is essential for fostering partnerships with faculty and enhancing the library’s role in research support.

https://tinyurl.com/2ufwxxre

“Scientific Publishing Without Gatekeeping: An Empirical Investigation of Elife’s New Peer Review Process”

At the end of January 2023, eLife introduced a new publishing model (alongside the old-traditional-publishing model): all manuscripts submitted as preprints are peer-reviewed and published if they are deemed worthy of review by the editorial team (“editorial triage”). The model abandons the gatekeeping function and retains the previous “consultative approach to peer review”. Even under the changed conditions, the question of the quality of judgements in the peer review process remains. In this study, the reviewers’ ratings of manuscripts submitted to eLife were examined in terms of both descriptive comparisons of peer review models, and the following selected quality criteria of peer review: interrater agreement and interrater reliability. . . . The interrater agreement and interrater reliability for the criteria “significance of findings” and “strength of support” were similarly low, as previous empirical studies for gatekeeping journals have shown. The fairness of peer review is not or only slightly compromised. We used the empirical results of our study to recommend several improvements to the new publishing model introduced by eLife as for example, increasing transparency, masking author identity or increasing the number of expert reviewers.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05422-y

“Fake Publications in Biomedical Science: Red-Flagging Method Indicates Mass Production”

Integrity of academic publishing is increasingly undermined by fake publications massively produced by commercial “editing services” (so-called “paper mills”). These services use AI-supported production techniques at scale and sell fake publications to students, scientists, and physicians under pressure to advance their careers. Because the scale of fake publications in biomedicine is unknown, we developed an easy-to-apply rule to red-flag potentially fake publications and estimate their number. After analyzing questionnaires sent to authors of published papers, we developed simple classification rules and tested them in a 9-step bibliometric analysis in a sample of 17,120 publications listed in PubMed®. We first validated various simple rules and finally applied a multifactorial tallying rule comparing 400 known fakes with 400 random (presumed) non-fakes. This rule was then applied to 1,000 random publications each from 2020 and 2023. The multifactorial tallying rule was the best red-flagging method, with a 94% sensitivity and only a 11.5% false-alarm rate. The rate of red-flagged articles increased during the last decade, reaching an estimated 14.9% in 2020 and 16.3% in 2023. Countries with the highest proportion of read-flagged publications were China, India, Iran, Russia, and Turkey, with China and India the largest absolute contributors globally. Applying Bayes’ rule resulted in an estimate of 5.8% actual fakes in the biomedical literature. Given 1.86 million Scimago-listed biomedical publications in 2023, we estimate the actual number of true fakes at 107.800 articles per year, growing steadily. Scientific publications in biomedicine can be red-flagged as potentially fake using fast-and-frugal classification rules to earmark them for subsequent scrutiny. When applying Bayes´rule, the annual true scale of fake publishing in biomedicine is about 19 times that of the 5.671 biomedicine retractions in 2023. This scale of fraudulent publishing is concerning as it can damage trust in science, endanger public health, and impact economic spending. But fake detection tools can enable retractions of fake publications at scale and help prevent further damage to the permanent scientific record.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-025-04275-9

Data Curation Network Director at University of Minnesota

The Director for the DCN provides operational support and direction for the organization, while coordinating a sense of community across the active network of data curators and stakeholders. In consultation with the DCN Executive Committee, Governance Board, and Advisory Board, the Director is responsible for coordinating shared curation services, fostering connections and community across member institutions, and helping to shape and sustain the DCN. Specifically, the Director will oversee daily operations of the Network, including managing distributed data curation services, as well as engaging in the business and planning aspects of the DCN with a team of dedicated representatives who are committed to the success of the Network.

https://hr.umn.edu/Jobs/Find-Job

“Prestige over Merit: An Adapted Audit of LLM (Large Language Models) Bias in Peer Review”

Large language models (LLMs) are playing an increasingly integral, though largely informal, role in scholarly peer review. Yet it remains unclear whether LLMs reproduce the biases observed in human decision-making. We adapt a resume-style audit to scientific publishing, developing a multi-role LLM simulation (editor/reviewer) that evaluates a representative set of high-quality manuscripts across the physical, biological, and social sciences under randomized author identities (institutional prestige, gender, race). The audit reveals a strong and consistent institutional-prestige bias: identical papers attributed to low-prestige affiliations face a significantly higher risk of rejection, despite only modest differences in LLM-assessed quality. To probe mechanisms, we generate synthetic CVs for the same author profiles; these encode large prestige-linked disparities and an inverted prestige-tenure gradient relative to national benchmarks. The results suggest that both domain norms and prestige-linked priors embedded in training data shape paper-level outcomes once identity is visible, converting affiliation into a decisive status cue.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.15122

“The Scandal of Academic Publishing”

Much is rotten in academic publishing, but it is easier to hold noses than do anything more fundamental about the stench. The five companies dominating the industry have grown fat on the backs of free academic labour. Why do academics (and so their research funders, their employers and the taxpayer) continue to subsidise the Big Five? Perhaps because one needs, and the other supplies, the publication indicators of academic performance on which rankings and the distribution of resources in higher education are largely based. Many of those with vested interests in academic publishing and higher education share a faith that publication indicators indicate something other than an ability to game, that academic papers will be read rather than merely counted, and that scholarship is mysteriously protected by a peer review system that is often little more than hollow ritual. The incursion of “predatory” publishers – publishers simply selling authors what they want – cheap, instant performance indicators, no questions asked, no need for gaming or peer review – might have been expected to have shaken this faith. Instead, established academic publishers have not hesitated to emulate the predators in their rush to make money, whatever the cost. This paper argues that the cost may be to scholarship.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-025-10042-8

“Implementing AI in Library-Led Programs to Foster Critical Information Literacy”

The spread of fake news and misinformation poses significant challenges to the integrity of information ecosystems, undermining public trust. Libraries, traditionally trusted sources of credible information, are in a unique position to address this issue through the integration of artificial intelligence (AI). This paper explores the potential of AI to detect misinformation and enhance critical information literacy. AI technologies like natural language processing and machine learning can analyze text patterns, verify sources, and identify fake news at scale. Tools such as fact-checking algorithms and real-time content monitoring systems can help librarians curate reliable resources and guide users in distinguishing credible information from misinformation. AI can also be employed to promote critical information literacy through personalized educational experiences, including chatbots and virtual assistants that offer on-demand guidance on evaluating information. Ethical considerations play a crucial role in AI implementation. The paper addresses concerns over biases in AI algorithms, data privacy, and the ethics of automated decision-making. Strategies for mitigating these risks include prioritizing transparency, accountability, and user-centered design. By upholding ethical standards, libraries can align AI use with their core mission of serving the public good. The study also highlights the practical challenges libraries face in adopting AI, such as resource constraints, staff training, and system integration. Case studies from pioneering institutions offer insights into overcoming these barriers. Libraries can implement AI to combat misinformation and foster critical information literacy while maintaining ethical principles. This approach strengthens libraries’ roles in ensuring informed, equitable access to information and positions them as key players in the fight against fake news.

https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202509.1281.v1

“Beginner’s Charm: Beginner-Heavy Teams Are Associated With High Scientific Disruption”

Teams now drive most scientific advances, yet the impact of absolute beginners — authors with no prior publications — remains understudied. Analyzing over 28 million articles published between 1971 and 2020 across disciplines and team sizes, we uncover a universal and previously undocumented pattern: teams with a higher fraction of beginners are systematically more disruptive and innovative. Their contributions are linked to distinct knowledge-integration behaviors, including drawing on broader and less canonical prior work and producing more atypical recombinations. Collaboration structure further shapes outcomes: disruption is high when beginners work with early-career colleagues or with co-authors who have disruptive track records. Although disruption and citations are negatively correlated overall, highly disruptive papers from beginner-heavy teams are highly cited. These findings reveal a “beginner’s charm” in science, highlighting the underrecognized yet powerful value of beginner fractions in teams and suggesting actionable strategies for fostering a thriving ecosystem of innovation in science and technology.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.10389

“Causal Evidence of Racial and Institutional Biases in Accessing Paywalled Articles and Scientific Data”

Scientific progress fundamentally depends on researchers’ ability to access and build upon the work of others. Yet, a majority of published work remains behind expensive paywalls, limiting access to universities that can afford subscriptions. Furthermore, even when articles are accessible, the underlying datasets could be restricted, available only through a “reasonable request” to the authors. One way researchers could overcome these barriers is by relying on informal channels, such as emailing authors directly, to obtain paywalled articles or restricted datasets. However, whether these informal channels are hindered by racial and/or institutional biases remains unknown. Here, we combine qualitative semi-structured interviews, large-scale observational analysis, and two randomized audit experiments to examine racial and institutional disparities in access to scientific knowledge. Our analysis of 250 million articles reveals that researchers in the Global South cite paywalled papers and upon-request datasets at significantly lower rates than their Global North counterparts, and that these access gaps are associated with reduced knowledge breadth and scholarly impact. To interrogate the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon, we conduct two randomized email audit studies in which fictional PhD students differing in racial background and institutional affiliation request access to paywalled articles (N = 18,000) and datasets (N = 11,840). We find that racial identity more strongly predicts response rate to paywalled article requests compared to institutional affiliation, whereas institutional affiliation played a larger role in shaping access to datasets. These findings reveal how informal gatekeeping can perpetuate structural inequities in science, highlighting the need for stronger data-sharing mandates and more equitable open access policies.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.08299

“Pioneering Approaches in Open Peer Review”

In a new pilot supported by the Gates Foundation, authors submitting to PLOS Global Public Health can now opt in to have their peer review comments posted to their preprint as their manuscript undergoes formal evaluation. This initiative brings together two key strands of our open science strategy: encouraging preprint sharing and promoting transparent peer review. . . .

We are continually innovating to understand how we can make peer review more open, efficient, and recognized for its importance. In 2019, we launched Published Peer Review History, allowing authors to opt in to share their complete peer review reports combining reviewer comments and editorial decisions alongside their published articles. We’ve long supported reviewers who wish to sign their reviews, and integrate with tools like ORCID to enable reviewer credit even for anonymous reviews. We encourage editors to consider preprint comments as part of the peer review process across all our journals.

PLOS has partnered with Review Commons since 2020 to provide a journal-agnostic, high-quality peer review service for authors of preprints in bioRxiv and medRxiv who wish to submit to our life sciences journals. Earlier this year we also announced a new partnership between PLOS Biology and MetaROR to consider reviews that accompany submissions of metaresearch that have already been evaluated on the site.This partnership builds on the journal’s collaboration with PCI-Registered Reports and other PCI communities, as well as its existing commitment to portable peer review, which allows authors to submit reviews from previous submissions to other journals to expedite editorial decisions and reduce strain on the reviewer pool.

https://tinyurl.com/49p25rm4

Manuscript Data Curation Fellow at University of Pennsylvania

Fellow will work with member institutions to generate metadata descriptions for undescribed manuscript objects in the form of DS Catalog records. The Fellow will assess the needs of current and prospective members, carry out basic evaluation and research in collaboration with institution staff (in some cases onsite), collect and organize information using the DS data model and its documentation to create structured descriptions, and assist in data enrichment and the maintenance of DS authorities to facilitate ingest of records into the DS Catalog.

https://tinyurl.com/42hxd4mp

“Maintaining an Open Mind: Sustaining Open-Source Digital Collections”

After a slow and laborious migration process, the University of Louisville successfully migrated from proprietary digital collections software to an open-source Samvera Hyku solution. After our migration our over-enthusiastic customizations started to catch up with us and our users. Without sufficient funding and development support, even as an R1 institution, we are stuck unable to support our bespoke approach. Despite this we are persisting with Hyku, largely because of the supportive Samvera community and its efforts to increase the sustainability of the system. From the perspectives of three mid-career librarians (serving as project manager, designer, and developer) and the early-career Metadata Librarian, we will discuss the importance of a) assessing resources before diving into an open-source project and b) cooperating with community partners in open-source software development and maintenance.

https://doi.org/10.31274/joerhe.20346

“High Costs, Long Waits, and Ethical Dilemmas: A Review of Challenges in Academic Publishing”

The landscape of publication of research papers is becoming more and more challenging, especially in terms of the financial, temporal, and ethical aspects. These challenges are made worse by the expanding power of accrediting bodies and technological advancements like Artificial Intelligence (AI). Article Processing Charges (APCs) sometimes exceed the financial means of academics and researchers, especially in developing and underdeveloped countries. High submission volumes and peer-review bottlenecks cause lengthy publication timelines, which further complicate matters and cause uncertainty and delays in scholars’ career advancement. Academic integrity is threatened by ethical issues like the improper use of AI tools, which also call into question the originality and creativity of research. This review draws upon insights from a curated body of recently published research papers to highlight structural injustices in academic publishing, their adverse effects on global research output, and the excessive pressure placed on faculty members to fulfill the requirements of accreditation agencies. To promote a more just and sustainable research ecosystem, this study suggests doable solutions, such as reforms in publishing economics, expedited peer-review procedures, and responsible AI use.

https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.20250015

Open Education Librarian at University of Massachusetts Amherst

The Open Education Librarian provides innovative and high-quality programming and services at UMass Amherst. Housed in the division of Data, Digital Strategies, & Scholarly Communication, the Open Education Librarian leads the Libraries’ programs and services supporting the creation, adaptation, and adoption of open educational resources, tools, and practices. Working with Libraries’ colleagues, campus partners, faculty, and graduate students, they will prioritize the development of robust, high-impact, and affordable course materials for learners at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, across the Commonwealth, and beyond.

https://tinyurl.com/2fd8vbfu