EN

PreprintToPaper dataset: connecting bioRxiv preprints with journal publications

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Autors : Fidan Badalova, Julian Sienkiewicz, Philipp Mayr

The PreprintToPaper dataset connects bioRxiv preprints with their corresponding journal publications, enabling large-scale analysis of the preprint-to-publication process. It comprises metadata for 145,517 preprints from two periods, 2016–2018 (pre-pandemic) and 2020–2022 (pandemic), retrieved via the bioRxiv and Crossref APIs.

We selected the two periods to capture preprint-publication dynamics before and during the COVID-19 pandemic while avoiding transitional years. Each record includes bibliographic information such as titles, abstracts, authors, institutions, submission dates, licenses, and subject categories, alongside enriched publication metadata including journal names, publication dates, author lists, and further information.

In addition to the main dataset, a version-history subset provides all available versions of preprints within the two selected periods, enabling analysis of how preprints evolve over time. Preprints are categorized into three groups: Published (formally linked to a journal article), Preprint Only (posted on a preprint server), and Gray Zone (potentially published in a journal but unlinked).

To enhance reliability, title and author similarity scores were computed, and a human-annotated subset of 299 records was created to evaluate Gray Zone cases. The dataset supports diverse applications, including studies of scholarly communication, open science policies, bibliometric tool development, and natural language processing research on textual changes between preprints and their corresponding journal articles.

URL : PreprintToPaper dataset: connecting bioRxiv preprints with journal publications

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-026-06867-3

EN

Perceptions and values of Spanish women scientists towards digital science communication

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Rosana Villares, Carmen Pérez-Llantada, Oana Maria Carciu

The digitalisation of science communication has been widely promoted within the Open Science movement in Europe to foster the social impact of research, as well as a more participatory culture of science.

Using semi-structured interviews, we explore Spanish women scientists’ values and perceptions regarding digital science communication. Results highlight the social value of science communication as well as intrinsic motivation as factors to actively engage in disseminating, educating and promoting science digitally.

Adopting Open Science principles, participants craft open access multimodal materials (e.g., educational short videos, podcasts), use supporting multimodal resources and digital tools, and engage in social media to reach broad audiences.

Finally, we propose some policy recommendations and pedagogical guidelines in terms of digital literacy, digital genres, and science accommodation strategies to promote digital science communication.

URL : Perceptions and values of Spanish women scientists towards digital science communication

DOI : https://doi.org/10.22323/156420251226063745

EN

Generative artificial intelligence in the publishing industry: adoption, use, intellectual property, and other challenges

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Marco Giraldo-Barreto

Taking as a starting point how generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) works, this text explores the level of adoption of such technology in the publishing sector (in particular for Latin America), shows examples of legislation challenges faced by states and the publishing industry in terms of intellectual property, and the implications of GenAI misuse in the academic publishing context. Finally, it proposes a course of action for a responsible adoption for the publishing chain of value.

URL : Generative artificial intelligence in the publishing industry: adoption, use, intellectual property, and other challenges

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2026.1759242

EN

Can ChatGPT be a good follower of academic paradigms? Research quality evaluations in conflicting areas of sociology

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Mike Thelwall, Ralph Schroeder, Meena Dhanda

Purpose

It has become increasingly likely that Large Language Models (LLMs) will be used to score the quality of academic publications to support research assessment goals in the future. This may cause problems for fields with competing paradigms since there is a risk that one may be favoured, causing long term harm to the reputation of the other.

Design/methodology/approach

To test whether this is plausible, this article uses 17 ChatGPTs to evaluate up to 100 journal articles from each of eight pairs of competing sociology paradigms (1490 altogether). Each article was assessed by prompting ChatGPT to take one of five roles: paradigm follower, opponent, antagonistic follower, antagonistic opponent, or neutral.

Findings

Articles were scored highest by ChatGPT when it followed the aligning paradigm, and lowest when it was told to devalue it and to follow the opposing paradigm. Broadly similar patterns occurred for most of the paradigm pairs. Follower ChatGPTs displayed only a small amount of favouritism compared to neutral ChatGPTs, but articles evaluated by an opposing paradigm ChatGPT had a substantial disadvantage. Research limitations: The data covers a single field and LLM.

Practical implications

The results confirm that LLM instructions for research evaluation should be carefully designed to ensure that they are paradigm-neutral to avoid accidentally resolving conflicts between paradigms on a technicality by devaluing one side’s contributions. Originality/value: This is the first demonstration that LLMs can be prompted to show a partiality for academic paradigms.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.22426

EN

Back to the roots: reimagining scientific evaluation of research without peer review

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Malik Sallam

The peer review system, once a noble aspiration, now lags behind the accelerating demands of modern science.

This opinion piece calls for a decisive departure from that peer review system and advocates for a return to a more accountable, editorially driven model of scholarly evaluation. Scientific editors – already vested with decision‑making authority – should no longer outsource their judgement to external referees. Instead, they must reclaim their rightful role as the primary arbiters of scientific merit.

Too often, editorial judgement is diluted by ritualized consultation, where peer review delays innovation, rewards consensus and obscures responsibility.

I argue for a future in which academic editors decide independently, sign their decisions and are recognized – publicly and professionally – for the intellectual stewardship they provide. By linking editorial work to scientific databases such as Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, we can incentivize rigour, transparency and accountability.

This model would not erode scientific integrity but elevate it, replacing bureaucracy with responsibility. It is time to shed the cloak of anonymity and return authority – and credit – to those best positioned to shape the scientific record; the academic editors themselves.

URL : Back to the roots: reimagining scientific evaluation of research without peer review

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.714

EN

Data as a new research publication type: What could be the role of research libraries as service providers?

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Mari Elisa Kuusniem, Susanna Nykyri

This article examines the evolving role of research libraries in supporting the recognition of datasets as legitimate academic outputs through data publishing. Although the academic community increasingly acknowledges the value of treating research data as standalone contributions, there remains a lack of comprehensive frameworks and services to support this shift. Research libraries are well-positioned to lead in data curation and publication by collaborating with researchers, institutions, and other stakeholders.

Using a qualitative, multi-method approach—including a literature review, an exploratory survey of university libraries in the Nordic and Baltic countries, and professional experience—we investigate current practices, challenges, and institutional perspectives on data publishing. Our findings highlight inconsistent terminology in data policies and evolving services for data appraisal and visibility. We differentiate data publishing from general data sharing, emphasizing critical aspects such as data citability, quality control, and ethical reuse.

The article discusses various publishing pathways—such as data journals, repositories, and article supplements—and their respective implications. We identify key service gaps in libraries, particularly in data evaluation and discoverability, and propose strategies for libraries to promote data journals and domain-specific repositories. Ultimately, we advocate for libraries to expand their role by developing integrated services for data appraisal, curation, and preservation, and by strengthening staff competencies in data management. Such efforts are essential for increasing the visibility, credibility, and scholarly impact of research data.

This paper is a continuation to a presentation provided in Liber Conference 2022. The presentation paper was acknowledged with the Innovation Award.

URL : Data as a new research publication type: What could be the role of research libraries as service providers?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.19415

EN

Peer Review at the Crossroads

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Dmitry Kochetkov

Peer review has long been regarded as a cornerstone of scholarly communication, ensuring high quality and credibility of published research. Although academic journals trace their origins back three centuries, the procedures for evaluating submissions, particularly peer review, have undergone continuous evolution.

Peer review’s formal institutionalisation in the mid-20th century represents a significant, yet natural, phase in this ongoing transformation of scholarly communication. By the early 21st century, there emerged an opinion that the conventional model of peer review faces systematic challenges, including inefficiency, bias and institutional inertia.

The study aims to synthesise the evolution, practices and outcomes of both conventional and innovative peer review models in scholarly publishing. Through a mixed-methods approach combining interpretative literature review and process modelling (Business Process Model and Notation–BPMN), it identifies four frameworks: pre-publication peer review, registered reports, modular publishing and the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model.

While the PRC model, which integrates preprints with post-publication review, demonstrates advantages in transparency and accessibility, no single approach emerges as universally ideal. The choice of model depends on disciplinary context, resource availability and institutional priorities.

The analysis underscores the need for adaptable platforms that enable hybrid workflows, balancing rigour with inclusivity. Future research must address empirical gaps in evaluating these innovations, particularly their long-term impact on equity and epistemic norms.

URL : Peer Review at the Crossroads

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2046