FR

Outreach, ou la construction « légitime » du positionnement des grands groupes de l’édition scientifique dans le champ de la communication des sciences

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Autrice/Author : Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri

Le texte vise à rendre compte de la manière dont la restructuration du secteur de la publication autour des modèles ouverts et des plateformes numériques a conduit les grands groupes de l’édition scientifique à envisager le champ de la communication des sciences comme une extension du champ de la communication scientifique pour leurs luttes de domination et de légitimation.

L’exemple des revues The Lancet et Nature, respectivement médicale et généraliste, et leurs stratégies éditoriales sur leurs comptes de réseaux sociaux grand public, montre la variété, la richesse et la complexité des contenus diffusés, au service d’une médiation socio-scientifique, qui fidélise un vivier de lecteurs et d’auteurs, mais qui permet aussi de se démarquer et de se distinguer vis-à-vis de leurs concurrents.

URL : https://lesenjeux.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/2025/dossier/03-outreach-ou-la-construction-legitime-du-positionnement-des-grands-groupes-de-ledition-scientifique-dans-le-champ-de-la-communication-des-sciences/

EN

Enhancing Consistency in Peer Review: A Statistical Analysis of Discrepancies and Proposals for Improvement

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Maher M. Alarfaj

This paper investigates the inconsistencies present in peer review by analysing the evaluation patterns of reviewers involved in an educational award in the Arab Gulf Country States. A statistical approach was used to assess the degree of variation in scores assigned to 270 manuscripts reviewed by three different groups of reviewers.

The study revealed significant differences in the evaluations, suggesting that at least two reviewers often showed discrepancies in their assessments despite using the standardised evaluation form. The observed discrepancies appear to reflect underlying complexities related to reviewer perspectives and evaluation standards, highlighting challenges in achieving uniformity across assessments.

Additionally, it proposes a model to enhance peer review consistency, including methods for score adjustment and calibration to mitigate reviewer differences. The goal is to offer practical recommendations for improving the fairness, transparency and reliability of peer review systems, contributing to the ongoing development of academic publishing practices.

For audiences beyond the academic community including publishers, editors and academic librarians, these findings show how practical statistical tools can strengthen peer review and build greater trust in academic publishing.

URL : Enhancing Consistency in Peer Review: A Statistical Analysis of Discrepancies and Proposals for Improvement

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fleap.2033

EN

Evaluating the efficacy and impact of a pilot programme for FAIR data stewardship at a UK university

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Zuzanna Zagrodzka, Jenni Adam, Richard Campbell, Helen Foster

Increasingly, funders, publishers, and institutions expect researchers to comply with the FAIR principles to ensure that data is findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. In an institutional context, however, questions remain as to how organisations can move beyond a broad commitment to FAIR, coupled with support for researchers to comply nominally with related grant conditions, to a more embedded and sustainable approach with a meaningful and pervasive impact on the FAIRness of research outputs.

A data stewardship model offers one way to achieve this, yet in contrast to universities in mainland Europe and especially in the Netherlands, the UK is substantially lacking in such infrastructure at an institutional level, hampering efforts to evidence its potential impact within UK institutions and thereby advocate for its adoption.

This article examines efforts to address this challenge via a recent project at the University of Sheffield to establish a pilot support service around FAIR data stewardship. It also provides a case study of how the benefits and impact of such an intervention might be identified and articulated through an evidence-led evaluation.

URL : Evaluating the efficacy and impact of a pilot programme for FAIR data stewardship at a UK university 

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v19i1.1035

EN

“We find that…” changing patterns of epistemic positioning in research writing

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Yanfang Yang, Xuan Guo

Introduction: Epistemic positioning refers to the writer’s commitment to the truth of a proposition and assessment of its potential impact on readers. Despite its importance, little attention has been paid to how writers make epistemic judgments across disciplines over time.

Methods: Drawing on Hyland and Zou’s taxonomies of hedges and boosters, we analyzed 240 research articles from education, history, mechanical engineering, and physics, covering three periods (1960, 1990, and 2020).

Results: Our findings show that epistemic positioning has significantly decreased across all four disciplines over time, with writers increasingly preferring less use of epistemic markers in pursuit of an objective, data-based, and scientific style.

Discussion: These results suggest a disciplinary shift in research writing practices and have important implications for raising students’ and novice academic writers’ awareness of evolving knowledge discourses shaped by changing societies.

URL : “We find that…” changing patterns of epistemic positioning in research writing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1634848

EN

Goodness vs. Greatness: An Analysis of Motivation in Open Access Policies at US Land-Grant Institutions

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Wendi Kaspar, Sarah Potvin

Higher education, when understood as a public or common good, aligns with the values of an open access movement that promotes public access to information and published research. In the United States, land-grant institutions rhetorically appeal to their shared missions of public benefit and societal advancement. Do land-grant institutions with open access policies make rhetorical claims that these policies align with their specific institutional missions as land-grants?

This study examines land-grant universities in the United States that have adopted institutional open access (OA) policies, testing the hypothesis that they will reference their public mission in these policies. A content analysis of institutional open access policies was performed to determine the motivating factors as expressed, explicitly or implicitly, and assess commitments to the public good or to status-linked priorities such as reputation.

While these policies maintained continuity with the broader OA movement through appeals to “dissemination” and invoked land-grant values in the language of public benefit, they overwhelmingly referenced reputational benefit as a priority. This study finds that land-grant institutions rely on the language of their open access policies to express complex motivations for pursuing public access to research.

URL : Goodness vs. Greatness: An Analysis of Motivation in Open Access Policies at US Land-Grant Institutions

DOI : https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.2025.a971029

EN

Prevention of Endogamy in the Editorial Boards of University Journals

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Maryna Nazarovets, Serhii Nazarovets

Editorial endogamy, the over-representation of scholars affiliated with a journal’s host institution on its editorial board, is a widespread phenomenon in university journals (UJs). This practice is often shaped by institutional traditions, resource limitations, internal loyalty, promotion incentives, and opaque selection practices.

While some degree of institutional representation is inevitable, excessive editorial endogamy raises concerns about peer review integrity, international visibility, and negatively impacts the credibility and inclusivity of scholarly publishing. This review explores the systemic drivers of editorial endogamy, focusing on institutional governance structures, national research policies, and academic evaluation frameworks that influence editorial board composition in UJs.

Additionally, we review best practices to mitigate negative effects, including increasing editorial transparency, diversifying peer review processes, and strengthening regulatory oversight. Strategies such as rotational editorial leadership, transparent peer review policies, structured regulatory interventions, and cross-institutional collaborations are recommended to balance institutional autonomy with international publishing standards.

The implementation of these measures has the potential to enhance the credibility, inclusivity, and global impact of UJs while preserving their role in supporting local and disciplinary research communities.

Recognizing the constraints faced by many UJs, we propose flexible and scalable solutions to enhance editorial integrity while considering the operational realities of university-based publishing. Effectively addressing editorial endogamy requires coordinated action among universities, journal editors, and policymakers.

URL : s10805-025-09Prevention of Endogamy in the Editorial Boards of University Journals687-z

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09687-z

EN

Preprint policies across journals and publishers in ecology and evolutionary biology

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Marija Purgar, Edward R. Ivimey-Cook, Antica Culina, Joshua D. Wallach

Preprints have the potential to accelerate knowledge dissemination and promote transparency in ecology and evolutionary biology. However, concerns about journal policies regarding prior publication may discourage researchers from preprinting their manuscripts.

Therefore, we identified 230 eligible ecology and evolutionary biology journals, published by 69 different publishers, and assessed both their journal- and publisher-level preprint policies. At the journal level, 119 (51.7%) of the 230 journals included preprint policies in their author guidelines—either through journal-specific policies (109, 47.4%) or by directly referencing their publisher’s preprint policies (10, 4.3%).

Overall, 116 (97.5%) of these journals were supportive of considering preprints for publication. At the publisher level, 26 (37.7%) of the 69 publishers had explicit preprint policies, all of which supported considering preprints for publication. There were 38 (16.5%) journals without journal- or publisher-level preprint policies.

While most journals and publishers were supportive of considering preprints for publication, instructions for authors, such as acceptable locations for posting preprints, timing of preprint posting relative to manuscript submission and requirements to link preprints to final published articles, were lacking.

These findings highlight opportunities for ecology and evolutionary biology journals, along with their publishers, to clarify and refine their preprint policies and instructions for authors.

URL : Preprint policies across journals and publishers in ecology and evolutionary biology

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2025.0524