EN

Shifting norms in scholarly publications: trends in readability, objectivity, authorship, and AI use

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Padraig Cunningham, Padhraic Smyth, Barry Smyth

Academic and scientific publishing practices have changed significantly in recent years. This paper presents an analysis of 17 million research papers published since 2000 to explore changes in authorship and content practices. It shows a clear trend towards more authors, more references and longer abstracts.

While increased authorship has been reported elsewhere, the present analysis shows that it is pervasive across many major fields of study. We also identify a decline in author productivity which suggests that `gift’ authorship (the inclusion of authors who have not contributed significantly to a work) may be a significant factor. We further report on a tendency for authors to use more hyperbole, perhaps exaggerating their contributions to compete for the limited attention of reviewers, and often at the expense of readability.

This has been especially acute since 2023, as AI has been increasingly used across many fields of study, but particularly in fields such as Computer Science, Engineering and Business. In summary, many of these changes are causes of significant concern. Increased authorship counts and gift authorship have the potential to distort impact metrics such as field-weighted citation impact andh-index, while increased AI usage may compromise readability and objectivity.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.21725

EN

Open research data integration in universities: How data stewards adapt global policies to local contexts

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Stefan Stepanovic, Auriane Marmier, Tobias Mettler

Global research policies, often driven by political agendas rather than academic expertise, generate pressure on local entities to conform to global standards. This is particularly the case for universities seeking international relevance, which must address Open Research Data (ORD) principles.

Our study examines the strategic decisions that university boards must make in adopting ORD, and explores the developing role of data stewards as key facilitators in day-to-day data governance. Drawing on the first-hand experience of a professional data steward at a research-intensive Swiss university, we illustrate in four situations how power dynamics and knowledge gaps complicate the reconciliation of ORD ideals with local operational realities.

In response, we advocate a strategic shift to an integrated data stewardship model. We also propose strategies to empower data stewards by increasing the visibility of ORD in research projects, promoting task flexibility, reducing bureaucratic constraints, and setting realistic, incremental goals. We further recommend adapting global terminology to local contexts, harmonizing processes, and proactively promoting ORD.

Ultimately, our efforts emphasize the specificity of universities as expert organizations and complement traditional education and training initiatives. In this way, we aim to pave the way for a more effective and holistic implementation of ORD and ultimately other global policies.

URL : Open research data integration in universities: How data stewards adapt global policies to local contexts

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.70034

EN

Reforming research funding: Combining editorial preregistration with grant peer review

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Lutz Bornmann, Gerald Schweiger

Competitive grant funding is associated with high costs and a potential bias to favor conservative research. This comment proposes integrating editorial preregistration, in the form of registered reports, into grant peer review processes as a reform strategy.

Linking funding decisions to in principle accepted study protocols would reduce reviewer burden, strengthen methodological rigor, and provide an institutional foundation for (more) replication, theory driven research, and high risk research. Our proposal also minimizes strategic proposal writing and ensures scholarly output through the publication of preregistered protocols, regardless of funding outcomes.

Possible implementation models include direct coupling of journal acceptance with funding, co review mechanisms, voucher systems, and lotteries. While challenges remain in aligning journal and funding agency procedures, the integration of preregistration and funding offers a promising pathway toward a more transparent and efficient research ecosystem.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.01439

EN

No Fees, No Barriers—But What Standards? Considerations on the DIAMAS Diamond OA Standard Applied to a Public Health Journal

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Annarita Barbaro, Maria Cristina Barbaro, Federica Napolitani

The Diamond Open Access (OA) model—characterized by the absence of fees for both authors and readers—has gained increasing attention in recent years. A wide range of scholarly journals are using this model, as emerged while mapping the Diamond OA landscape worldwide; however, some still depend on hybrid revenue streams such as print sales, subscriptions, and marginal APCs.

A number of recent initiatives underlined the need to increase quality assurance, sustainability, and cooperation within the Diamond OA ecosystem. Among them, the Diamond OA Standard (DOAS), a framework comprising detailed guidelines and a self-assessment tool to facilitate Diamond OA publishing practices, was created by the DIAMAS project, sponsored by the European Commission.

Annali dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanità, the official journal of the Italian leading public health research institution, is a Diamond OA journal. To improve transparency and quality, the editorial team used the DOAS self-assessment tool to evaluate its compliance with the standards proposed by DIAMAS and to identify potential areas for improvement.

This article presents the process and findings of the DOAS self-assessment tool conducted on Annali ISS, with the aim of sharing insights and support with other journals seeking to align with the DOAS framework.

URL : No Fees, No Barriers—But What Standards? Considerations on the DIAMAS Diamond OA Standard Applied to a Public Health Journal

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13040053

EN

Library Publishing Services for Community Authors

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Kyle Morgan

Introduction

As universities have extended services beyond their campus borders, academic libraries have engaged the cause in a variety of ways. This case study of the Cal Poly Humboldt Library details one uniquely effective method by opening publishing services to the community.

Background

While universities and libraries have served community needs through numerous programs, including by providing community authorship support, the context of community publishing points to academic library publishing services as a well-aligned solution.

Description of Program and Benefits

Using student employment to support operations, the Press at Cal Poly Humboldt has developed a robust community publishing program that fosters student voices and skill development, increases community engagement, advances solutions to critical issues, and broadens the university’s local outreach and global impact.

Conclusion

The wide-ranging benefits of community publishing encourage academic libraries to extend their publishing services to a community test case in the assessment of the impact on campus students, the library, the university, and the community.

URL : Library Publishing Services for Community Authors

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18411

EN

A pilot study investigating the relationship between journal impact factor and methodological quality of real-world observational studies

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Digant Gupta, Amandeep Kaur, Mansi Malik

Introduction

The primary objective of this study was to investigate the association between journal Impact Factor (IF) and study quality in real-world observational studies. The secondary objective was to explore whether the association changes as a function of different study factors (study design, funding type and geographic location).

Methods

Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). IFs were obtained from journal websites. The association between journal IF and NOS score was evaluated firstly using Spearman’s correlation coefficient, and secondly using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

Results

We selected 457 studies published in 208 journals across 11 consecutive systematic literature reviews (SLRs) conducted at our organization over the last 5 years. Most studies were cross-sectional and from North America or Europe. Mean (SD) NOS score was 6.6 (1.03) and mean (SD) IF was 5.2 (4.5). Overall, there was a weak positive correlation between NOS score and IF (Spearman’s coefficient (ρ) = 0.23 [95% CI: 0.13–0.31]; p < 0.001). There was no correlation between NOS score and IF for prospective cohort studies (ρ = 0.07 [95% CI:−0.12–0.25]) and industry-funded studies (ρ = 0.06 [95% CI:−0.09–0.21]). Based on ANOVA, the effect size, eta squared (η2), was 0.04 (95% CI: 0.01–0.08), indicating a small effect.

Discussion

While there is some correlation between journal quality and study quality, our findings indicate that high-quality research can be found in journals with lower IF, and assessing study quality requires careful review of study design, methodology, analysis, interpretation, and significance of the findings. Notably, in industry-funded studies, no correlation was found between methodological quality and IF.

URL : A pilot study investigating the relationship between journal impact factor and methodological quality of real-world observational studies

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1679842

EN

Comparing science communication ecosystems: towards a conceptual framework for cross-national research on science communication

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors :  Liliann Fischer, Mike S. Schäfer , Hannah Schmid-Petri

This paper proposes a framework to guide cross-national, comparative research on science communication. Current research often relies on ad-hoc criteria for selecting countries (such as geographic proximity) or on pragmatic considerations (like data availability), which may limit the ability to capture broader contexts or identify the cases best suited for analysis.

Drawing on the ecosystems concept, we integrate theoretical perspectives on political systems, academic systems, and media systems to identify a set of ideational and structural factors that are essential for understanding country variations in science communication: political system settings, the role of the state/market, political attention to science communication, and societal values and norms.

Based on these, we suggest (and preliminarily illustrate) a typology of four ideal-types of science communication ecosystems — public-service-oriented, market-oriented, state-centred and fragmented — that could guide and should be tested in future research.

URL : Comparing science communication ecosystems: towards a conceptual framework for cross-national research on science communication

DOI : https://doi.org/10.22323/148320250924054927