EN

Research Data: A Public Good or a Private Asset?

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Tadeu Fernando Nogueira, Trude Eikebrokk, Laila Økdal Aksetøy

This article is concerned with the issue of how Research Performing Organizations can balance the market and non-market values of the research data they hold. To address this issue, we adopt the lenses of the Resource Based View and Open Science and explore the interplay between them.

In doing so, this article addresses the question of whether it is possible to achieve a balance between research data as a public good and as a private asset and if so, how. Of particular interest are Research Performing Organizations in the institute sector that operate under both market and non-market logics, which have implications for how they govern their research data.

From the discussions undertaken in the article, one of the main conclusions is that Research Performing Organizations may benefit from adopting a research data governance model that captures both the economic and societal values of research data.

They could do so, for instance, by developing an integrative institutional policy and by actively using data management plans to evaluate the value of the data produced in research projects.

URL : Research Data: A Public Good or a Private Asset?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.22604

 

EN

Greenwashing at Elsevier: A political ecology of corporate publishing

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Angus Lyall, Mark Ortiz, Emily Billo

The largest science publishing corporations, including Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Springer, and Sage, are key partners for the oil, gas, and coal industries insofar as they distribute scientific research and data that facilitate fossil fuel exploration, production, and distribution.

Critical researchers seldom trace fossil fuels and, in turn, the climate crisis to the publishing corporations that they generally rely upon to distribute their own research. We argue that corporate publishers produce the invisibility of their connections to fossil fuels through changing practices of greenwashing both in the public sphere and within firms.

We detail marketing and management practices in the case of the largest science publisher in the world: Elsevier. On the one hand, we examine evolving forms of green marketing. On the other hand, building on recent calls for political ecologies of labor, we highlight the proliferation of ‘greenwashing rituals’ within the firm – i.e., performative, management-sponsored dialogues and actions regarding climate change.

We suggest that researchers continue to expand frameworks for critiquing the fossil fuel industry to include auxiliary industries such as corporate publishing.

URL : Greenwashing at Elsevier: A political ecology of corporate publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.6276

EN

Evaluation of Faculty Knowledge of Predatory Journals in the United States: A Cross-Institutional Survey

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Nicole R. Webber, Stephanie Wiegand, Jason A. Cohen, John M. Reynolds, Lisa Ancelet, Arlene V. Salazar

Predatory journals are a known hazard in modern academic research publishing, with research and anecdotal accounts indicating that they exploit inexperienced researchers. Most literature on the topic centres on specific disciplines and/or countries deemed ‘more vulnerable’ to publishing scams.

At the time of publication, no studies have examined a full range of disciplines at institutions across the United States. Our research collected responses from 1098 faculty at 17 US doctoral universities using a multi-disciplinary survey to assess self-reported knowledge and awareness of predatory publishing.

In this analysis, we investigated participants’ reported knowledge levels of predatory journals in relation to four aspects: academic discipline, years employed in academic research, number of articles published, and early career researcher status.

We conclude that the relationship between experience and knowledge of predatory publishing depends on the definition of experience employed, and that the number of recent articles published by a faculty member is a more reliable indicator of knowledge about predatory publishing than the other measures of experience investigated.

URL : Evaluation of Faculty Knowledge of Predatory Journals in the United States: A Cross-Institutional Survey

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2020

 

EN

Does ChatGPT Ignore Article Retractions and Other Reliability Concerns?

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Mike Thelwall, Marianna Lehtisaari, Irini Katsirea, Kim Holmberg, Er-Te Zheng

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT seem to be increasingly used for information seeking and analysis, including to support academic literature reviews. To test whether the results might sometimes include retracted research, we identified 217 retracted or otherwise concerning academic studies with high altmetric scores and asked ChatGPT 4o-mini to evaluate their quality 30 times each.

Surprisingly, none of its 6510 reports mentioned that the articles were retracted or had relevant errors, and it gave 190 relatively high scores (world leading, internationally excellent, or close). The 27 articles with the lowest scores were mostly accused of being weak, although the topic (but not the article) was described as controversial in five cases (e.g., about hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19).

In a follow-up investigation, 61 claims were extracted from retracted articles from the set, and ChatGPT 4o-mini was asked 10 times whether each was true. It gave a definitive yes or a positive response two-thirds of the time, including for at least one statement that had been shown to be false over a decade ago.

The results therefore emphasise, from an academic knowledge perspective, the importance of verifying information from LLMs when using them for information seeking or analysis.

URL : Does ChatGPT Ignore Article Retractions and Other Reliability Concerns?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2018

EN

Research data management services in academic libraries to support the research data life cycle: A systematic review

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Richard Cheng Yong Ho, Suei Nee Wong, Patsy Chia, Chris Tang, Magdeline Tao Tao Ng

Academic libraries play an increasingly crucial role in providing services, information, education, and infrastructure support related to research data management (RDM). This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive and critical analysis of the state of RDM services offered by academic libraries worldwide.

Utilizing the systematic review methodology, the paper examines 89 empirical studies to answer four research questions: (1) the types of RDM services implemented by academic libraries; (2) what are the infrastructure, workflow, and resources used to support these services; (3) what are the reasons for implementing these RDM services; and (4) the effectiveness of these RDM services in supporting the research data life cycle, if any.

This review highlights the critical reasons academic libraries provide RDM services and how they implemented these services through partnerships, infrastructure, and systems, and adapting to new workflows within the library.

These findings also examine the balance between institutional contexts, researchers’ needs, and library resources required to provide these RDM services. By investigating these questions, the results will provide recommendations and guidance for academic libraries interested in implementing RDM services in their own library and institutional contexts.

URL : Research data management services in academic libraries to support the research data life cycle: A systematic review

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.70008

EN

How do women and men differ in research collaborations based on authorship positions? The Spanish case

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Fernanda Morillo, Manuel Escabias, Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez

This study examines gender disparities in authorship and collaboration within the Spanish scientific workforce, focusing on international and industry co-authored publications. Drawing on a comprehensive dataset of over 165,000 publications and more than 170,000 identified authors affiliated with Spanish institutions, the analysis explores how gender interacts with authorship position, research field, career stage, and team size.

The results reveal a consistent under-representation of women in both types of collaboration, particularly in key authorship roles (first, last, and corresponding author). While women are more active at early career stages, their visibility in leadership roles tends to diminish over time, especially as the number of co-authors increases. Field-specific patterns show that even in highly feminized disciplines, such as Biomedical & Health Sciences, women are less likely to appear in prominent authorship positions.

These findings raise important concerns about current research assessment practices that rely heavily on byline position as a proxy for contribution or leadership. The study contributes to ongoing discussions on responsible metrics and proposes policy recommendations to promote more equitable evaluation systems that reflect the collaborative and diverse nature of research careers.

URL : How do women and men differ in research collaborations based on authorship positions? The Spanish case

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1631931

EN

Scholarly Publications: Criteria, Types, and Recognition From the Researchers’ Perspective

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Christian Kaier, Lisa Schilhan, Lisa Schilhan, Hilmar Brohmer

Based on a survey, this study investigates the perceptions of researchers in Austria concerning scholarly publications, exploring criteria, types, and emerging types of publication and their future recognition. The findings reveal that researchers value a diverse set of criteria, with content-related factors prioritised over formal ones. While traditional publication types remain dominant, novel forms, such as data publications and replication studies, are gaining recognition.

Researchers (n = 616) express a desire for broader recognition of diverse types of work, particularly data publications, teaching materials, and software or code. The findings also exhibit the predominantly research-to-research focus of scholarly communication, with limited emphasis on science-to-public engagement. An analysis of career stages shows that pre-doctoral and post-doctoral researchers tend to be more open-minded than professors regarding the future recognition of some novel types of publication.

There are evident differences between disciplines, highlighting the need for a nuanced, subject-specific approach to evaluation and documentation. Overall, the survey results call for greater consideration of novel publication types in research assessment and documentation. Accordingly, libraries should enhance their research support services to assist in the publication, documentation, and archiving of additional types of publication.

URL : Scholarly Publications: Criteria, Types, and Recognition From the Researchers’ Perspective

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2019