EN

Why the Current Model oAcademic Publishing Is Ethically Flawed—and What We Can Do to Change It

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Emilia Kaczmarek

This article offers a reasoned call for urgent reform of the academic journal publishing system. It focuses on the ethical flaws of the current for-profit model. This model enables the transfer of public funds into the profit margins of private companies that add no meaningful value to research and even limit access to knowledge.

The article describes how feedback loops in metrics used in the evaluation of scientific publishing exacerbate structural inequalities and make it difficult to break out of the system. Moreover, the opportunity for easy profit attracts dishonest actors and fuels the rise of predatory journals, which in turn corrodes public trust in science.

Without systemic reforms, the current system could also undermine artificial intelligence–driven research outcomes by enabling models to be trained on a growing number of substandard scientific publications. The article concludes with ten specific proposals for action, aimed at stimulating further discussion within and beyond academia.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2025-0047

EN

Altmetrics in the evaluation of scholarly impact: a systematic and critical literature review

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Paloma González, Martha Fors, Ariel Torres

Altmetrics have emerged as a complementary tool to traditional citation-based metrics in the assessment of scholarly impact. Unlike traditional metrics that primarily capture academic citations over long periods, altmetrics reflect immediate online attention across platforms such as Twitter, blogs, news outlets, and Mendeley.

This article critically examines whether altmetrics can serve as a substitute for traditional metrics by exploring their strengths, limitations, disciplinary variations, and correlation with conventional indicators.

Through a review of recent empirical studies and theoretical debates, the article argues that while altmetrics offer valuable insights into social impact and engagement, they are not yet mature or standardized enough to fully replace traditional metrics. Instead, a hybrid model that integrates both systems may offer a more holistic and inclusive measure of research influence.

URL : Altmetrics in the evaluation of scholarly impact: a systematic and critical literature review

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1693304

EN

Mapping the Landscape of Open Access Dashboards – A Dataset for Research and Infrastructure Development

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Johannes Schneider, Heinz Pampel

As Open Access continues to gain importance in science policy, understanding the proportion of Open Access publications relative to the total research output of research-performing organizations, individual countries, or even globally has become increasingly relevant.

In response, dashboards are being developed to capture and communicate progress in this area. To provide an overview of these dashboards and their characteristics, an extensive survey was conducted, resulting in the identification of nearly 60 dashboards.

To support a detailed and structured description, a dedicated metadata schema was developed, and the identified dashboards were systematically indexed accordingly. To foster community engagement and ensure ongoing development, a participatory process was launched, allowing interested stakeholders to contribute to the dataset.

The dataset is particularly relevant for researchers in Library and Information Science (LIS) and Science and Technology Studies (STS), supporting both empirical analyses of Open Access and the methodological refinement of indicators and policy instruments in the context of Open Science.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.01669

 

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