Scholarly Journals – Page 2

"Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats: A Comprehensive SWOT Analysis of AI and Human Expertise in Peer Review"

Instead of casting blame [about peer review failures], we must ask ourselves the critical questions: Are we equipping our peer reviewers with the right tools to succeed in an increasingly complex landscape? How can AI be harnessed not as a burden, but as a true ally in maintaining the integrity of research? Are we prepared to re-think the roles within peer review? Can we stop viewing AI as a threat or as a problem and instead embrace it as a partner—one that enhances human judgment rather than complicates it?

https://tinyurl.com/4p5pr6k6

"eBooks, Interlibrary Loan and an Uncertain Future"

Important advancements are underway, but ILL for ebooks is hampered by restrictive licensing models, resource sharing systems, and current practices. This study provides an environmental scan of the current acquisitions and ILL practices of academic libraries. This paper guides academic libraries through these conversations so that they can support the borrowing and lending of ebooks into the future.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2024.2391735

"Impact Factor Does Not Predict Long-Term Article Impact across 15 Journals"

Authors who publish in journals with higher impact factors are deemed to contribute more to their discipline. However, the impact factor of a journal does not indicate how long a specific article stays in the scientific discourse, and metrics that measure the length of time articles within a journal continue to be cited are not typically used. We examined citations of 443,732 research articles [786,064 total] between 1980 and 2020 across 15 journals. We explored the range of longevity values found across different journals as well as the relationship between impact factor and longevity. We found no relationship between impact factor and longevity, indicating that immediate attention to an article is not correlated with longer-term impact. . . .

For early-career scholars, the implications of citation longevity can be meaningful. Our data suggest that a new faculty member publishing primarily in strong society journals has yet to reach their full impact by mid-career milestones such as applying for tenure and promotion. The total contribution of the work to the field will likely not be seen until after their career is finished. . . .

The results presented here have important implications for journal selection and evaluation of science academics. For example, early career researchers may benefit from publishing in lower-impact, higher-longevity journals because their work may become classic within their field when they reach full promotion. Additionally, hiring and promotion committees should consider giving journals with higher longevity scores more weight among early career researchers, as these works can potentially impact departmental rankings over the long run. Furthermore, funding agencies and university review committees could benefit from a holistic analysis of academic productivity by examining article and journal performance metrics over time along with traditional indicators, such as altmetrics (Fortin et al., 2021), impact factor, and total citations.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dim.2024.100079

"Is Open Access Disrupting the Journal Business? A Perspective from Comparing Full Adopters, Partial Adopters, and Non-adopters"

This study employs the concept of disruptive innovation to develop a more systematic perspective on the impact of OA. It compares the market power of full-OA adopters with that of partial adopters and non-adopters. Using Lerner’s definition of market power, a series of mean difference tests and regressions were conducted using Lerner’s definition of market power. The findings reveal that both full-OA adopters and partial adopters exhibit greater market power than non-adopters. However, full adopters do not have more market power than partial adopters, even when compared to the subscription options of hybrid journals. This suggests that OA disrupts the market power of both incumbents and traditional businesses. Nevertheless, the situation changes once incumbents integrate an OA option into their publishing repertoire and transition to a hybrid model.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2024.101574

Scholarly Publishing in the Humanities, 2000-2024: Marketing and Communications Challenges and Opportunities

This book explores the recent history and future directions of scholarly publishing in the humanities in the United States from a marketing and communications perspective. The study draws on statistical surveys and data from a multidude of sources in order to analyze the major challenges confronting the humanities in higher education as well as the opportunities for print and digital publication since 2000. Chapters cover all types of publishing from university to trade presses, libraries, national programs, and self publishing, and focuses on changes in higher education funding, the impact of disruptive technologies such as AI, and the importance of global markets in disseminating new research in the humanities.

https://tinyurl.com/25m3abwu

"Tweeting and Retweeting Scientific Articles: Implications for Altmetrics"

Despite differences in extent of engagement of users, original tweets and retweets to scientific publications are considered as equal events. Current research investigates quantifiable differences between tweets and retweets from an altmetric point of view. Twitter users, text, and media content of two datasets, one containing 742 randomly selected tweets and retweets (371 each) and another with 5898 tweets and retweets (about 3000 each), all linking to scientific articles published on PLoS ONE, were manually categorized. Results from analyzing the proportions of tweets and retweets indicated that academic and individual accounts produce majority of original tweets (34% and 55%, respectively) and posted significantly larger proportion of retweets (41.5 and 81%). Bot accounts, on the other hand, had posted significantly more original tweets (20%) than retweets (2%). Natural communication sentences prevailed in retweets and tweets (63% vs. 45%) as well as images (41.5% vs. 23%), both showing a significant rise in usage overtime. Overall, the findings suggest that the attention scientific articles receive on Twitter may have more to do with human interaction and inclusion of visual content in the tweets, than the significance of or genuine interest towards the research results.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05127-8

"An Analysis of the Impact of Gold Open Access Publications in Computer Science"

There has been some concern about the impact of predatory publishers on scientific research for some time. Recently, publishers that might previously have been considered `predatory’ have established their bona fides, at least to the extent that they are included in citation impact scores such as the field-weighted citation impact (FWCI). These are sometimes called ‘grey’ publishers (MDPI, Frontiers, Hindawi). In this paper, we show that the citation landscape for these grey publications is significantly different from the mainstream landscape and that affording publications in these venues the same status as publications in mainstream journals may significantly distort metrics such as the FWCI.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.10262

"Determinants of Downloads as Demand for Hybrid Journals "

Although Big Deal contracts that provide access rights to all electronic journals published by the publisher initially gained favor with university libraries, some libraries have terminated these contracts owing to increased charges since the 2010s. Consequently, they are faced with the problem of selecting journals for purchase within their limited budgets. This study investigates the factors affecting the number of downloads, representing journal demand, to provide libraries with guidance on journal selection. The download equation for 1485 hybrid journals published by Springer Nature is formulated using ordinary least squares. The results found that 5% and 50% of the 1485 journals generated approximately 30% and 85% of the downloads in 2022, respectively. Downloads are concentrated in fewer journals, although the Pareto principle does not apply to hybrid journals. Demand concentration implies that libraries do not need to maintain access rights to all journals. Recently, a few leading publishers have provided access rights to almost all electronic journals based on transformative agreements aiming to promote open access. Therefore, this study’s findings raise the issue of the rationale for bundling electronic journals in transformative agreements, which is similar to Big Deal. Moreover, the results of the download estimation reveal that hybrid journals with more open access articles, larger citation scores, and longer histories acquire more downloads. These findings indicate that open access accelerates the dissemination of research.

https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.18689

"Women and Men in Library and Information Science Scholarship: Authorship Trends from 2003 to 2021"

Library and information science (LIS) has long consisted of more women than men, at least in sheer numbers of library employees, but men are the primary authors of library literature. This study explores LIS literature published between 2003 and 2021 to identify if there are differences in the publishing patterns of women and men. The authors used content analysis to code the entire sample to identify overall subject trends after authors were categorized as women or men by mainly automated methods, using two R packages, genderize and ssa. The results show that there are overall inequities when compared to the profession as whole between the publishing rates of women and men in LIS, as well as differences in publication patterns by subjects and within specific journals. Shifts in subjects over the period under investigation did not increase the percentage of women publishing in the selected LIS journals. The authors conclude more research needs to be conducted to determine the cause of inequities in publishing not just among women and men, but all underrepresented voices in LIS.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102939

"The PubPeer Conundrum: Administrative Challenges in Research Misconduct Proceedings"

The founders of PubPeer envisioned their website as an online form of a “journal club” that would facilitate post-publication peer review. Recently, PubPeer comments have led to a significant number of research misconduct proceedings – a development that could not have been anticipated when the current federal research misconduct regulations were developed two decades ago. Yet the number, frequency, and velocity of PubPeer comments identifying data integrity concerns, and institutional and government practices that treat all such comments as potential research misconduct allegations, have overwhelmed institutions and threaten to divert attention and resources away from other research integrity initiatives. Recent, high profile research misconduct cases accentuate the increasing public interest in research integrity and make it inevitable that the use of platforms such as PubPeer to challenge research findings will intensify. This article examines the origins of PubPeer and its central role in the modern era of online-based scouring of scientific publications for potential problems and outlines the challenges that institutions must manage in addressing issues identified on PubPeer. In conclusion, we discuss some potential enhancements to the investigatory process specified under federal regulations that could, if implemented, allow institutions to manage some of these challenges more efficiently.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2390007

"Artificial Intelligence Assisted Curation of Population Groups in Biomedical Literature "

Curation of the growing body of published biomedical research is of great importance to both the synthesis of contemporary science and the archiving of historical biomedical literature. Each of these tasks has become increasingly challenging given the expansion of journal titles, preprint repositories and electronic databases. Added to this challenge is the need for curation of biomedical literature across population groups to better capture study populations for improved understanding of the generalizability of findings. To address this, our study aims to explore the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in the form of large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 as an AI curation assistant for the task of curating biomedical literature for population groups. We conducted a series of experiments which qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the performance of OpenAI’s GPT-4 in curating population information from biomedical literature. Using OpenAI’s GPT-4 and curation instructions, executed through prompts, we evaluate the ability of GPT-4 to classify study ‘populations’, ‘continents’ and ‘countries’ from a previously curated dataset of public health COVID-19 studies.

Using three different experimental approaches, we examined performance by: A) evaluation of accuracy (concordance with human curation) using both exact and approximate string matches within a single experimental approach; B) evaluation of accuracy across experimental approaches; and C) conducting a qualitative phenomenology analysis to describe and classify the nature of difference between human curation and GPT curation. Our study shows that GPT-4 has the potential to provide assistance in the curation of population groups in biomedical literature. Additionally, phenomenology provided key information for prompt design that further improved the LLM’s performance in these tasks. Future research should aim to improve prompt design, as well as explore other generative AI models to improve curation performance. An increased understanding of the populations included in research studies is critical for the interpretation of findings, and we believe this study provides keen insight on the potential to increase the scalability of population curation in biomedical studies.

https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v18i1.950

"Lawmakers Raise New Licensing Concerns over White House Open Access Mandate"

While Republican appropriators in the House have previously tried to entirely block the White House’s open access policy, now appropriators in both chambers of Congress have advanced legislation that would block federal agencies from limiting authors’ ability to choose how to license their work. . . .

This language used in the House report and Senate report regarding researcher choice is identical, though the House goes further by advising federal agencies not to “exert broad ‘federal purpose’ authority over peer reviewed articles” or “otherwise force use of an open license.”

House Republicans also propose that the White House be prohibited from using any funding to implement the policy, as they attempted in last year’s legislation.

https://tinyurl.com/46y42ecr

"’Academic Publishing is a Business Interest’: Reconciling Faculty Serials Needs and Economic Realities at a Carnegie R2 University"

Introduction: This article explores faculty conceptions of academic publishers, their willingness to circumvent paywalls and share content, and their understanding of who holds the responsibility to pay for this body of scholarly work to which they all contribute.

Methods: The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 faculty at their Carnegie R2 university to explore scholars’ perspectives with respect to the costs of serials and the responsibilities of the University and library in support of scholarly publishing.

Results: Participants reported a broad spectrum of perspectives with respect to circumventing publisher paywalls and offered nuanced practices for interacting with paywalled content. They explained which library services work well and offered suggestions on how best to support faculty needs for serial literature. Although most participants agree that the University has the responsibility of making academic literature available to the community, they differ in their conceptions of academic publishers as good-faith partners in the knowledge enterprise.

Discussion: The results suggest a great deal of ambiguity and diversity of beliefs among faculty: some would support boycotting all commercial publishers; some understand academic publishers to be integral to the dissemination of their work, not to mention tenure and promotion processes; and many acknowledge a variety of tensions in what feels to them an exploitative and fraught relationship. These findings have implications for library services in acquisitions, collection management, scholarly communication, discovery, and access.

https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.16232

"Cost, Advocacy, and a Mechanism for Transformation: The Proposed Power of Open Access Funds"

As paid open access becomes a mainstream academic practice, stakeholders must evaluate their role in the system. While open access advocates develop new ways to support the publication process and funding structure, commercial publishers continue to pivot to maintain their profit, relevance, and power in the publication system. This article provides the details of Montana State University’s Open Access Author Fund as an evaluation of the service and its impact on the local publishing ecosystem. As stewards of publicly funded knowledge, it is essential to critically analyze each new publishing route before adopting and supporting it. Especially when models claim to transform the system, librarians need to understand how an action changes the system, for whom, and at what cost.

https://tinyurl.com/524sp3tz

"A Publishing Platform That Places Code Front and Centre"

Last month, the Microscopy Society of America (MSA) quietly launched a journal that its creators hope will lead academic publishing in the future. Elemental Microscopy, a publication focused on reviews and methods tutorials, leverages an authoring and publishing platform called Curvenote to create rich, interactive, digital papers with coding and data analysis at their heart. By allowing readers to explore data and recreate results in the publication, the firm behind the platform, also called Curvenote, and its growing list of clients seek to ease science’s long-standing reproducibility crisis and modernize the scientific literature.

https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02577-1

Germany: "Achievements of the First DEAL Agreement Phase"

In a new publication, the German-wide DEAL consortium presents the key achievements of its first contract phase with the publishers Wiley and Springer Nature. The newly published infographic brochure provides a comprehensive insight into the background, objectives and results of the DEAL initiative. . . .

A particular focus is on the enormous increase in Open Access publications. Between 2019 and 2023, more than 105,000 publications from German scientific institutions were published under the DEAL agreements, 97 percent of which are Open Access. This remarkable success means that two-thirds of all research output from Germany is now freely accessible worldwide — a significant increase from the 30% before the DEAL initiative began.

https://tinyurl.com/mu99w2kz

“The First DEAL Agreements 2019-2023: Setting the Path for Open Access and Transparency“

"Wiley and Oxford University Press Confirm AI Partnerships as Cambridge University Press Offers ‘Opt-In’"

Wiley and Oxford University Press (OUP) told The Bookseller they have confirmed AI partnerships, with the availability of opt-ins and remuneration for authors appearing to vary. . . .

Meanwhile, Cambridge University Press has said it is talking to authors about opt ins along with ‘fair remuneration’ before making any deals.

Hachette, HarperCollins, and Pan Macmillan have not made AI deals.

https://tinyurl.com/bdzax5sk

cOAlition S: "Pricing Framework to Foster Global Equity in Scholarly Publishing"

cOAlition S is pleased to announce the release of a new pricing framework designed to foster global equity in scholarly publishing. Developed by Information Power following consultation with the funder, library/consortium, and publisher communities, the framework is introduced to enable discussion, promote greater transparency and inspire publishers and other service providers to implement more equitable pricing across different economies. To support this, the framework provides users with guiding principles, data, information, and tools. The approach is adaptable, allowing publishers to implement changes gradually and in line with their specific circumstances. It can be applied to various pricing models, including article processing charges (APCs), subscriptions, and transformative agreements.

Global differentiated pricing that fosters equity is:

Part of a broader commitment to equity, inclusion, diversity, and belonging.

Aligned ideally with a single consistent approach developed in meaningful, open, and transparent consultation with the research community.

Relative to the context of each country, including income and purchasing power.

Communicated clearly, easy to understand, and transparent to all.

Transparently based on independent, open datasets that are regularly updated and that can be accessed, validated, and reused by everyone.

Based on shared risk. Customers and publishers should share currency risks.

Key features of the framework include:

Open, Transparent Data: Utilizing World Bank International Comparison Program data, reflecting each country’s income and ability to pay.

Banding: Grouping countries into bands eases administration.

Excel-Based Tool: Allowing publishers to explore and set their own bands and differential prices using the same transparent data.

Local Currencies: Issuing invoices in local currencies where possible.

Comprehensive Appendices: Detailed guidance on data sources, downloading World Bank datasets, and changes in country indices from 2017 to 2021.

The full report on the Pricing Framework to Foster Global Equity in Scholarly Publishing is available for download at https://zenodo.org/uploads/12784905, along with the More Equitable Pricing Tool and a set of frequently asked questions.

https://tinyurl.com/2jf7z43v

"Breach of Academic Values and Misconduct: The Case of Sci-Hub"

This paper investigates the growing evidence of research-related misconduct by developing and testing a theoretical framework. We study the deep causes of misconduct by asking whether the perception of an erosion of the core academic values, formally an ideology-based psychological contract breach, is associated with research-related misconduct. We test our framework by examining the use of Sci-Hub and providing empirical evidence that the loss of faith in scientific research sparkles research-related misconduct against publishers. Based on a stratified sample of 2849 academics working in 30 institutions in 6 European countries, we find that ideology-based psychological contract breach explains Sci-Hub usage, also when controlling for other possible motivations. The magnitude of the effect depends on contextual and demographic characteristics. Females, foreign, and tenured scholars are less likely to download papers illegally when experiencing a contract breach of academic values. Our results suggest that policies restoring academic values might also address research-related misconduct.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-05046-8

"The Promotion and Implementation of Open Science Measures among High-Performing Journals from Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain"

This study empirically examined the promotion and implementation of open science measures among high-performing journals of Brazil, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain. Journal policy related to data sharing, materials sharing, preregistration, open peer review, and consideration of preprints and replication studies was gathered from the websites of the journals. . . . Analyses found a higher promotion of open science measures among Brazilian journals than their Portuguese counterparts, and higher promotion of open science measures among international journals than their domestic counterparts. Analyses found higher implementation of open science measures among Brazilian journals than their Portuguese and Mexican counterparts. One journal out of 40 encouraged preregistration of studies; none encouraged replication studies and none had implemented open peer review.

https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1616

"Academic Authors ‘Shocked’ After Taylor & Francis Sells Access to Their Research to Microsoft AI"

One of the biggest concerns raised by Clemens [Dr Ruth Alison Clemens] is over whether it is possible for Taylor & Francis’ authors to opt out of the AI partnership with Microsoft. Clemens told The Bookseller: "There is no clarity from Taylor & Francis about whether an opt-out policy is in place or on the cards. But as they did not inform their authors about the deal in the first place, any opt-out policy is now not functional."

Taylor & Francis was paid around $10 million for the license.

https://tinyurl.com/3yyarxnj

"Big Ten Academic Alliance + Next Generation Library Publishing Announce the Launch of a Pilot Project"

The Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA) is excited to announce a partnership with the Next Generation Library Publishing (NGLP) project. This collaboration aims to test and enhance infrastructure solutions for academy-owned scholarly publishing programs that are open source, community-led, and rooted in academic values. The pilot project will create a unified discovery layer for the diverse publishing platforms of participating libraries, presenting them as a single, shared collection of open access materials.

Through this BTAA-funded initiative, Penn State University Libraries and Indiana University Libraries will work with the NGLP team to implement the Meru display layer, enhancing infrastructure and service models specifically for the BTAA. The project will involve migrating select content from the partners’ catalogs into the NGLP ecosystem, improving interface design, and expanding the types of content displayed. The goal is to support and strengthen academy-owned scholarly publishers with scalable solutions.

https://tinyurl.com/ychk5hc2

"Estimating Global Article Processing Charges Paid to Six Publishers for Open Access Between 2019 and 20"

This study presents estimates of the global expenditure on article processing charges (APCs) paid to six publishers for open access between 2019 and 2023. APCs are fees charged for publishing in some fully open access journals (gold) and in subscription journals to make individual articles open access (hybrid). There is currently no way to systematically track institutional, national or global expenses for open access publishing due to a lack of transparency in APC prices, what articles they are paid for, or who pays them. We therefore curated and used an open dataset of annual APC list prices from Elsevier, Frontiers, MDPI, PLOS, Springer Nature, and Wiley in combination with the number of open access articles from these publishers indexed by OpenAlex to estimate that, globally, a total of $8.349 billion ($8.968 billion in 2023 US dollars) were spent on APCs between 2019 and 2023. We estimate that in 2023 MDPI ($681.6 million), Elsevier ($582.8 million) and Springer Nature ($546.6) generated the most revenue with APCs. After adjusting for inflation, we also show that annual spending almost tripled from $910.3 million in 2019 to $2.538 billion in 2023, that hybrid exceed gold fees, and that the median APCs paid are higher than the median listed fees for both gold and hybrid. Our approach addresses major limitations in previous efforts to estimate APCs paid and offers much needed insight into an otherwise opaque aspect of the business of scholarly publishing. We call upon publishers to be more transparent about OA fees.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16551

"The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers Persists in Exclusive Database"

Global scholarly publishing has been dominated by a small number of publishers for several decades. We aimed to revisit the debate on corporate control of scholarly publishing by analyzing the relative shares of major publishers and smaller, independent publishers. Using the Web of Science, Dimensions and OpenAlex, we managed to retrieve twice as many articles indexed in Dimensions and OpenAlex, compared to the rather selective Web of Science. As a result of excluding smaller publishers, the ‘oligopoly’ of scholarly publishers persists, at least in appearance, according to the Web of Science. However, both Dimensions’ and OpenAlex’ inclusive indexing revealed the share of smaller publishers has been growing rapidly, especially since the onset of large-scale online publishing around 2000, resulting in a current cumulative dominance of smaller publishers. While the expansion of small publishers was most pronounced in the social sciences and humanities, the natural and medical sciences showed a similar trend. A major geographical divergence is also revealed, with some countries, mostly Anglo-Saxon and/or located in northwestern Europe, relying heavily on major publishers for the dissemination of their research, while others being relatively independent of the oligopoly, such as those in Latin America, northern Africa, eastern Europe and parts of Asia. The emergence of digital publishing, the reduction of expenses for printing and distribution and open-source journal management tools may have contributed to the emergence of small publishers, while the development of inclusive bibliometric databases has allowed for the effective indexing of journals and articles. We conclude that enhanced visibility to recently created, independent journals may favour their growth and stimulate global scholarly bibliodiversity.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.17893

"Effects of Research Paper Promotion via ArXiv and X"

In the evolving landscape of scientific publishing, it is important to understand the drivers of high-impact research, to equip scientists with actionable strategies to enhance the reach of their work, and to understand trends in the use of modern scientific publishing tools to inform their further development. Here, 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 computer science and physics. We find that early submissions 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 peer-reviewed conference papers in computer science that are 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 in the first 5 years from an initial publication. In contrast, journal articles in physics experience comparatively lower boosts in citation counts, with increases of 3.9±1.1, 4.3±0.9, and 6.9±3.5 citations respectively for the same interventions. 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. These effects are present also for publications in physics, but they are relatively smaller. The larger relative effect sizes, effects of promotion accumulating over time, and elevated unpredictability of the number of citations in computer science than in physics suggest a greater role of world-of-mouth spreading in computer science than in physics.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11116v2