EN

Who supports STEM early career researchers’ active science communication? A qualitative ego-network-analysis

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Lennart Banse, Fenja Heinke, Friederike Hendriks

Early career researchers (ECRs) are increasingly socialised in professional environments where science communication is seen as part of their academic role.

ECRs respond to these expectations differently, shaped in part by social relationships within and beyond academia. stThis study uses ego-network interviews with 24 highly communicative STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) ECRs in Germany to examine how social relationships influence the importance as well as the integration of science communication in their professional identity.

Results show that recognition and support often come from private contacts and the science communication community, while workplace environments are perceived as less supportive and formative. Moreover, different formats and processes of science communication seem to be tied to distinct networks and underlying communication motives.

URL : Who supports STEM early career researchers’ active science communication? A qualitative ego-network-analysis

DOI : https://doi.org/10.22323/156620251115064727

EN

Researchers’ Views on Preprints and Open Access Publishing: Results From a Free-Answer Survey of Japanese Molecular Biologists

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Harufumi Tamazawa, Kazuki Ide, Kazuhisa Kamegai

A survey conducted in 2022 amongst members of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan (n = 633) about preprints and open access journals included qualitative data from free-response answers (n = 161). Analysis of the free-form responses suggests that researchers believe that peer review of papers is the foundation for ensuring the credibility of research content.

The trust-building mechanism achieved through peer review shapes the research community. For this reason, researchers are extremely cautious about preprints that have not undergone peer review within their own fields.

This foundation has fostered a sense of responsibility within the community, and this sense of responsibility, which is being fulfilled by ensuring the quality of research, is a mixture of both a sense of responsibility towards the community itself and a sense of responsibility towards the outside world, namely the relationship between researchers and society.

Researchers also appear to view the rise in Article Processing Charges (APCs) as a problem for the entire community, rather than simply an issue for individual researchers. In the field of molecular biology, where collaborative research between universities and companies is common, differences in normative awareness based on position are reflected in the various attitudes towards preprints and open access.

URL : Researchers’ Views on Preprints and Open Access Publishing: Results From a Free-Answer Survey of Japanese Molecular Biologists

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2039

FR

Pour une éthique de l’intelligence artificielle dans le domaine de l’évaluation de la recherche

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Otmane Azeroual, Joachim Schöpfel

L’intelligence artificielle (IA) s’impose aujourd’hui dans de multiples secteurs, de la médecine à la logistique, en passant par la finance et l’éducation. Son intégration croissante dans les systèmes d’information sur la recherche (SI recherche) ouvre de nouvelles perspectives, mais soulève aussi des enjeux éthiques majeurs.

Cet article propose une réflexion sur le rôle de l’IA dans l’évaluation de la recherche, en mettant l’accent sur ses bénéfices, ses limites et la nécessité d’un cadre éthique rigoureux.

URL : Pour une éthique de l’intelligence artificielle dans le domaine de l’évaluation de la recherche

DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/15gp8

EN

Pursuing transparency: How research performing organizations in Germany collect data on publication costs

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Dorothea Strecker, Heinz Pampel, Jonas Höfting

This article presents the results of a survey conducted in 2024 among research performing organizations (RPOs) in Germany on how they collect data on publication costs. Of the 583 invitees, 258 (44.3%) completed the questionnaire.

This survey is the first comprehensive study on the recording of publication costs at RPOs in Germany.

The results show that the majority of surveyed RPOs recorded publication costs at least in part. However, procedures in this regard were often non-binding. Respondents’ ratings of the reliability of the collection of data on publication costs varied by the source of publication funding.

Eighty percent of respondents rated the contribution of collecting data on publication costs to shaping the open access transformation as « very important » or « important. » Yet, these data were used as a basis for strategic decisions in only 59% of the surveyed RPOs.

Moreover, most respondents considered the implementation of an information budget at their institutions by 2025 unlikely. We discuss the implications of these findings for the open access transformation.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.08340

EN

The Economics of Open Science and Ukraine’s Prospective Place in It

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Ganna Kharlamova

This article presents the evaluation of the factors influencing the adoption of Open Access (OA) within the Open Science (OS) paradigm, utilizing statistical dynamics of OA publications across EU countries from 2000 to 2022.

The study employs econometric modeling to test a set of hypotheses regarding the percentage of articles in OA, including: the proportion of freely accessible research outputs; the regulatory impact of OA declarations; state-driven OA publication; overall scientific development fostering collaboration; OA rates among top universities; young researchers engagement; and internet penetration as a facilitator of OA dissemination.

The analysis reveals the growth trajectory in dynamics of OA. The EU model forecasts an increase in the percentage of OA articles from approximately 50% in 2022 to 70% by 2030, contingent on sustained investment and policy alignment.

These hypotheses form a model initially developed for EU countries, providing a framework to assess Ukraine’s academic publishing landscape and its evolving position within OS. A SWOT and PESTLE analysis is conducted to evaluate the financing of Ukrainian science, identifying the broader implications of OA implementation.

Prospects for Ukraine’s integration into the OS paradigm are outlined, emphasizing the necessity of overcoming unique challenges such as war-related disruptions.

URL : The Economics of Open Science and Ukraine’s Prospective Place in It

DOI : https://doi.org/10.15388/Ekon.2025.104.4.1

EN

Opening Pandora’s box: Developing reviewer rhetorical sensitivity through retracted articles

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Baraa Khuder

Retractions issued for misconduct offer a unique window into how questionable research is rhetorically constructed and made to appear credible. This study investigates how engaging with retracted articles can serve as a pedagogical tool for reviewer training, with particular attention to the rhetorical mechanisms through which unreliability is performed.

Twenty STEM doctoral researchers analyzed self-selected retracted papers using guided critical-reading questions to identify problematic rhetorical features. Across the analyses, five recurring issues emerged: intertextual falsification, methodological opacity, rhetorical inconsistency, rhetorical overstatement, and terminological distortion.

The findings indicate that this approach has the potential to raise doctoral students’ rhetorical sensitivity by enabling them to detect subtle markers of unreliability and to adopt a more evaluative rhetorical stance toward scholarly texts.

Retracted articles thus can provide an authentic pedagogical resource for developing reviewer rhetorical sensitivity within doctoral education.

URL : Opening Pandora’s box: Developing reviewer rhetorical sensitivity through retracted articles

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2607681

 

EN

A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of AI Policies in Academic Peer Review

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Zhongshi Wang, Mengyue Gong

Rapid advances of artificial intelligence (AI) have substantially impacted the field of academic publishing. This study examines AI integration in peer review by analysing policies from 439 high- and 363 middle-impact factor (IF) journals across disciplines. Using grounded theory, we identify patterns in AI policy adoption.

Results show 83% of high-IF journals have AI guidelines, with varying stringency across disciplines. Meanwhile, only 75% of middle-IF journals have AI guidelines. Science, technology, and medicine (STM) disciplines exhibit stricter regulations, while humanities and social sciences adopt more lenient approaches.

Key ethical concerns focus on confidentiality risks, accountability gaps, and AI’s inability to replicate critical human judgement. Publisher policies emphasise transparency, human oversight, and restricted AI usage for auxiliary tasks only, such as grammar checks or reviewer finding.

Disciplinary differences highlight the need for tailored guidelines that balance efficiency gains with research integrity. This study proposes collaborative frameworks for responsible AI integration. It focuses on accountability, transparency, and interdisciplinary policy development to address peer review challenges.

URL : A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of AI Policies in Academic Peer Review

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2035