Catégorie : EN

Catégories
EN

The Modal Mode of Thinking about Scholarly Publishing

Author : Jefferson Pooley

The essay argues that the study of scholarly communication would benefit from attending to a “modal” sensibility—that is, a self-conscious sensitivity to the differences that different mediums make in understanding published works of scholarship.

The essay critiques the unreflective textualism that dominates the conversation on publishing. The claim is that the primacy of text, as the sovereign medium of academic communication, is a largely invisible parochialism.

The essay points to examples and traditions of multi-modal publishing as an entry point to taking the medium-specificity of publishing formats as an object of analysis. Such experimentation has followed, sometimes closely, the emergence of new mediums of storage and transmission within the societies that scholars work.

The mid-twentieth century birth of the modern medium concept made multi-modality a conceivable, self-conscious project. Even so, the discourse on academic publishing has rarely registered the implications, including for inherited text-based formats.

The essay concludes with a call for media scholars, curiously underrepresented in the discourse, to take up this task, with reference to pioneering works in the field.

URL : The Modal Mode of Thinking about Scholarly Publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3998/jep.8757

Catégories
EN

Regaining Scientific Authority in a Post-Truth Landscape

Authors : Andrew M. Petzold, Marcia D. Nichols

Recent decades have seen a rise of anti-science rhetoric, fueled by scientific scandals and failures of peer review, and the rise of trainable generative AI spreading misinformation. We argue, moreover, that the continued erosion of scientific authority also arises from inherent features in science and academia, including a reliance on publication as a method for gaining professional credibility and success.

Addressing this multifaceted challenge necessitates a concerted effort across several key areas: strengthening scientific messaging, combating misinformation, rebuilding trust in scientific authority, and fundamentally rethinking academic professional norms.

Taking these steps will require widespread effort, but if we want to rebuild trust with the public, we must make significant and structural changes to the production and dissemination of science.

URL : Regaining Scientific Authority in a Post-Truth Landscape

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13040065

Catégories
EN

Why the Current Model oAcademic Publishing Is Ethically Flawed—and What We Can Do to Change It

Author : Emilia Kaczmarek

This article offers a reasoned call for urgent reform of the academic journal publishing system. It focuses on the ethical flaws of the current for-profit model. This model enables the transfer of public funds into the profit margins of private companies that add no meaningful value to research and even limit access to knowledge.

The article describes how feedback loops in metrics used in the evaluation of scientific publishing exacerbate structural inequalities and make it difficult to break out of the system. Moreover, the opportunity for easy profit attracts dishonest actors and fuels the rise of predatory journals, which in turn corrodes public trust in science.

Without systemic reforms, the current system could also undermine artificial intelligence–driven research outcomes by enabling models to be trained on a growing number of substandard scientific publications. The article concludes with ten specific proposals for action, aimed at stimulating further discussion within and beyond academia.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2025-0047

Catégories
EN

Altmetrics in the evaluation of scholarly impact: a systematic and critical literature review

Authors : Paloma González, Martha Fors, Ariel Torres

Altmetrics have emerged as a complementary tool to traditional citation-based metrics in the assessment of scholarly impact. Unlike traditional metrics that primarily capture academic citations over long periods, altmetrics reflect immediate online attention across platforms such as Twitter, blogs, news outlets, and Mendeley.

This article critically examines whether altmetrics can serve as a substitute for traditional metrics by exploring their strengths, limitations, disciplinary variations, and correlation with conventional indicators.

Through a review of recent empirical studies and theoretical debates, the article argues that while altmetrics offer valuable insights into social impact and engagement, they are not yet mature or standardized enough to fully replace traditional metrics. Instead, a hybrid model that integrates both systems may offer a more holistic and inclusive measure of research influence.

URL : Altmetrics in the evaluation of scholarly impact: a systematic and critical literature review

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1693304

Catégories
EN

Mapping the Landscape of Open Access Dashboards – A Dataset for Research and Infrastructure Development

Authors : Johannes Schneider, Heinz Pampel

As Open Access continues to gain importance in science policy, understanding the proportion of Open Access publications relative to the total research output of research-performing organizations, individual countries, or even globally has become increasingly relevant.

In response, dashboards are being developed to capture and communicate progress in this area. To provide an overview of these dashboards and their characteristics, an extensive survey was conducted, resulting in the identification of nearly 60 dashboards.

To support a detailed and structured description, a dedicated metadata schema was developed, and the identified dashboards were systematically indexed accordingly. To foster community engagement and ensure ongoing development, a participatory process was launched, allowing interested stakeholders to contribute to the dataset.

The dataset is particularly relevant for researchers in Library and Information Science (LIS) and Science and Technology Studies (STS), supporting both empirical analyses of Open Access and the methodological refinement of indicators and policy instruments in the context of Open Science.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.01669

 

Catégories
EN

Enhancing Consistency in Peer Review: A Statistical Analysis of Discrepancies and Proposals for Improvement

Authors : Maher M. Alarfaj

This paper investigates the inconsistencies present in peer review by analysing the evaluation patterns of reviewers involved in an educational award in the Arab Gulf Country States. A statistical approach was used to assess the degree of variation in scores assigned to 270 manuscripts reviewed by three different groups of reviewers.

The study revealed significant differences in the evaluations, suggesting that at least two reviewers often showed discrepancies in their assessments despite using the standardised evaluation form. The observed discrepancies appear to reflect underlying complexities related to reviewer perspectives and evaluation standards, highlighting challenges in achieving uniformity across assessments.

Additionally, it proposes a model to enhance peer review consistency, including methods for score adjustment and calibration to mitigate reviewer differences. The goal is to offer practical recommendations for improving the fairness, transparency and reliability of peer review systems, contributing to the ongoing development of academic publishing practices.

For audiences beyond the academic community including publishers, editors and academic librarians, these findings show how practical statistical tools can strengthen peer review and build greater trust in academic publishing.

URL : Enhancing Consistency in Peer Review: A Statistical Analysis of Discrepancies and Proposals for Improvement

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fleap.2033

Catégories
EN

Evaluating the efficacy and impact of a pilot programme for FAIR data stewardship at a UK university

Authors : Zuzanna Zagrodzka, Jenni Adam, Richard Campbell, Helen Foster

Increasingly, funders, publishers, and institutions expect researchers to comply with the FAIR principles to ensure that data is findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. In an institutional context, however, questions remain as to how organisations can move beyond a broad commitment to FAIR, coupled with support for researchers to comply nominally with related grant conditions, to a more embedded and sustainable approach with a meaningful and pervasive impact on the FAIRness of research outputs.

A data stewardship model offers one way to achieve this, yet in contrast to universities in mainland Europe and especially in the Netherlands, the UK is substantially lacking in such infrastructure at an institutional level, hampering efforts to evidence its potential impact within UK institutions and thereby advocate for its adoption.

This article examines efforts to address this challenge via a recent project at the University of Sheffield to establish a pilot support service around FAIR data stewardship. It also provides a case study of how the benefits and impact of such an intervention might be identified and articulated through an evidence-led evaluation.

URL : Evaluating the efficacy and impact of a pilot programme for FAIR data stewardship at a UK university 

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v19i1.1035