EN

(De)generative AI and research integrity

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Jurij Selan

The phenomenon of artificial intelligence (AI) is inherently paradoxical. On one hand, it is generative. This generative quality has benefited contemporary research by enabling researchers to generate ideas and enhance research opportunities while saving time and costs.

On the other hand, the generative nature of AI appears inevitably to lead to antagonism, resulting in entropy through model collapse and becoming degenerative. In this article, we explore the extent to which the implicitly degenerative nature of AI could be regarded as the main long-term threat to research integrity (RI), as many other problems associated with the impact of AI on RI may be seen as its effects.

In the first part, we provide an overview of the impact of AI on RI, including AI ethics, the use of AI in education (AIED), AI as a “grey area” or questionable research practice (QRP), the implementation of principles for AI use in codes of conduct, and the attitudes of academic publishers and universities towards AI. In the second part, we examine how the collapse of generative AI into degenerative AI poses a critical threat to RI in the future.

We emphasise that the only way to prevent the harmful effects of the degenerative nature of AI on RI is to retain the original human-generated datasets as the basis for AI systems and continually add new human-generated datasets.

One of the key principles regarding the impact of AI on RI is therefore the responsibility to ensure that AI remains grounded in human-created reality. This, however, leads us to the sociotechnical perspective on degenerative AI, which we address in the third part, where we evaluate the broader social and moral impact of degenerative AI.

We stress a fundamental shift in human trust requirements towards society and make a plea for more inclusive anticipatory risk management of AI with respect to RI.

FR

L’archiviste et la gestion des jeux de données ouvertes de recherche en milieu universitaire canadien : une visibilité à accroître, des collaborations à développer

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Autrice : Siham Alaoui

Avec le mouvement de la science ouverte militant pour un accès équitable aux résultats de la recherche scientifique, les chercheurs universitaires sont tenus de déposer leurs jeux de données de recherche sous une forme ouverte et réutilisable par un tiers. Pourvu que ces traces documentaires soient réexploitables, il importe qu’elles obéissent à des critères de qualité définies selon les principes FAIR (Findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable).

Pour ce faire, plusieurs experts, nommément les bibliothécaires universitaires, accompagnent les chercheurs dans la gestion de leurs jeux de données de recherche. D’un point de vue archivistique, les jeux de données de recherche sont des preuves des activités scientifiques, ce qui laisse entendre qu’elles devraient également être prises en charge par les archivistes universitaires.

Cependant, ces derniers sont souvent peu présents dans ce contexte et leur rôle est, dans la plupart des cas, limité à la préservation à long terme de ces données. Dans cet article, nous nous attachons à la gestion des jeux de données ouvertes de recherche d’une perspective archivistique, en conceptualisant le rôle des archivistes universitaires dans la gestion collaborative de ces traces.

En mobilisant des corpus scientifiques pertinents en sciences de l’information, nous modélisons les relations que les archivistes entretiennent avec les autres parties prenantes impliquées dans la gouvernance des données ouvertes de recherche en milieu universitaire canadien. Notre recherche contribue à l’avancement des connaissances sur le rôle de l’archiviste universitaire dans la gouvernance collaborative des données de recherche.

URL : L’archiviste et la gestion des jeux de données ouvertes de recherche en milieu universitaire canadien : une visibilité à accroître, des collaborations à développer

DOI : https://doi.org/10.34874/IMIST.PRSM/jis-v24i1.57657

EN

Modernizing Legal Scholarship: Toward Open Access Compliance

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Ana Rogers-Butterworth, Melissa Moreau

Introduction and Literature Review: Legal research often operates outside conventional academic scholarship standards, characterized by a proliferation of student-edited journals and a notable absence of rigorous peer review. While some law journals have sought to align with established academic standards, many have struggled to keep pace with emerging open access (OA) requirements, such as those outlined by Plan S. As funding agencies increasingly mandate immediate OA for research outputs, the field of legal scholarly communications faces urgent needs for adaptation and modernization.

Methods: This study analyzed the OA policies of 384 journals that included articles and reviews authored by Canadian law faculty members. Data were extracted from Web of Science and Open Alex, focusing on six law faculties across Canada known for their high research output. Quantitative methods were used to assess publishing policies concerning OA principles.

Results: The findings reveal a strong preference for hybrid OA journals, particularly those with an international focus, often produced by interdisciplinary publishers. Diamond OA journals, primarily centered in North America, ranked second. Notably, a significant number of diamond OA journals fail to meet established OA standards, alongside a considerable presence of closed-access law journals.

Discussion and Conclusion: A consistent theme among law-specific publications, whether from academic faculty or corporate law publishers, is a pervasive lack of compliance with OA standards and a limited understanding of their implications. This underscores the imperative for further education and policy reform within the legal publishing ecosystem to enhance access and uphold the principles of open scholarship.

URL : Modernizing Legal Scholarship: Toward Open Access Compliance

DOI : https://doi.org/%2010.31274/jlsc.20259

EN

Data Availability Statements in Mega Journals: A Comparative Analysis of Global and Korea-Affiliated Publications in Health and Medical Research

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Sanghee Oh, Yunseo Park, Seyun Sim

Data Availability Statements (DAS) have become a standard mechanism for promoting transparency and reproducibility in open-access mega journals, yet questions remain about how effectively they support meaningful data sharing in practice and how these practices vary across national research contexts.

This study examines data-sharing practices in the medical and health sciences through a comparative analysis of global publications and Korea-affiliated articles in three mega journals indexed in PubMed Central: PLOS ONE, Scientific Reports and BMJ Open (2020–2024). DAS from 176,145 articles were collected from PubMed Central using an automated pipeline with manual validation and classified into a seven-category typology reflecting levels of data accessibility and reuse.

Results indicate that although DAS inclusion increased over time, repository-based data sharing remains limited, while ‘data available upon request’ continues to be prevalent. Clear differences are observed across journals: PLOS ONE shows greater use of repository-based and in-article sharing, whereas Scientific Reports and BMJ Open rely more heavily on ‘data available upon request’. Korea-affiliated articles largely follow global trends, with slightly greater reliance on national public data repositories.

Repository use is concentrated among a small number of international multidisciplinary platforms and selected national biomedical databases. The findings reveal a persistent gap between formal DAS compliance and effective data accessibility, indicating the need for clearer, more actionable data-sharing guidance.

URL : Data Availability Statements in Mega Journals: A Comparative Analysis of Global and Korea-Affiliated Publications in Health and Medical Research

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2083

FR

Des valeurs en science : neutralité ou engagement ?

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Auteur/Author : Malik Ghallab

Cette note introduit la controverse sur la nécessaire neutralité du chercheur dans sa pratique scientifique, versus son inévitable engagement éthique et social. Cette controverse ancienne donne lieu aujourd’hui à des ramifications politiques dommageables, révélatrices de tensions sociales et du rôle des sciences dans la société.

Les arguments pour l’engagement ou la neutralité méritent un approfondissement, épistémologique et cognitif. Cette communication tente d’éclairer la controverse et d’ouvrir la réflexion sur le rôle des valeurs en science et leurs liens avec les impératifs d’objectivité.

HAL : https://laas.hal.science/hal-05653297

FR

Trouver sa voix en anglais académique : apport et limites d’un assistant d’écriture basé sur l’IA

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Autrices : Jennifer Lucas, Irina Otmanine

Cet article présente un retour d’expérience sur l’intégration d’un assistant conversationnel fondé sur l’IA générative – le GPT Writing Coach – dans un cours d’écriture académique et professionnelle en anglais. Inscrite dans une démarche de Scholarship of Teaching and Learning et s’appuyant sur la théorie de l’auto-efficacité de Bandura, l’étude interroge la manière dont l’IA peut soutenir l’engagement, la créativité et le développement d’une voix personnelle en langue étrangère.

La méthodologie mixte retenue combine l’usage du questionnaire SAWSES au début et à la fin du semestre et l’analyse qualitative de verbatims recueillis via une plateforme d’autoévaluation. Les premiers résultats suggèrent des évolutions intéressantes concernant la perception de l’écriture académique et le rôle attribué au feedback généré par l’IA, tout en révélant plusieurs questions pédagogiques et éthiques. Ces éléments invitent à une réflexion approfondie sur la place de l’IA dans l’apprentissage des langues.

URL : http://journals.openedition.org/dms/12818

EN

The regulatory ethos in science

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Nicole C. Nelson, Lara Keuck

This paper introduces the concept of the regulatory ethos to describe some common values and ideals that underscore the close connection between validation and regulation that this issue of BJHS Themes explores. We identify the primary motivation for this ethos as making knowledge production processes traceable, and define the regulatory ethos as valuing plans over situated actions, uniformity over heterogeneity, auditing over communication, and validation over validity.

Standard operating procedures, reporting checklists, preregistrations, compliance rules and monitoring are key means through which this ethos is enacted. While regulators have been instrumental in promulgating this ethos, it is not confined to the regulatory sphere.

We argue that reforms aimed at enhancing rigour and reproducibility are an example of how the practices and values associated with regulatory science have diffused out into academic science. Identifying this ethos as regulatory in origin – rather than wholly new or as part of a broader process of modernization – allows us to see that alternatives are not unscientific per se, and better identify the strengths and weaknesses of the regulatory ethos of science, such as the risk that data produced through these procedures will be replicable, statistically rigorous, and transparent, but not meaningful.

URL : The regulatory ethos in science

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1017/bjt.2026.10041