EN

Goodness vs. Greatness: An Analysis of Motivation in Open Access Policies at US Land-Grant Institutions

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Wendi Kaspar, Sarah Potvin

Higher education, when understood as a public or common good, aligns with the values of an open access movement that promotes public access to information and published research. In the United States, land-grant institutions rhetorically appeal to their shared missions of public benefit and societal advancement. Do land-grant institutions with open access policies make rhetorical claims that these policies align with their specific institutional missions as land-grants?

This study examines land-grant universities in the United States that have adopted institutional open access (OA) policies, testing the hypothesis that they will reference their public mission in these policies. A content analysis of institutional open access policies was performed to determine the motivating factors as expressed, explicitly or implicitly, and assess commitments to the public good or to status-linked priorities such as reputation.

While these policies maintained continuity with the broader OA movement through appeals to “dissemination” and invoked land-grant values in the language of public benefit, they overwhelmingly referenced reputational benefit as a priority. This study finds that land-grant institutions rely on the language of their open access policies to express complex motivations for pursuing public access to research.

URL : Goodness vs. Greatness: An Analysis of Motivation in Open Access Policies at US Land-Grant Institutions

DOI : https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.2025.a971029

EN

Prevention of Endogamy in the Editorial Boards of University Journals

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Maryna Nazarovets, Serhii Nazarovets

Editorial endogamy, the over-representation of scholars affiliated with a journal’s host institution on its editorial board, is a widespread phenomenon in university journals (UJs). This practice is often shaped by institutional traditions, resource limitations, internal loyalty, promotion incentives, and opaque selection practices.

While some degree of institutional representation is inevitable, excessive editorial endogamy raises concerns about peer review integrity, international visibility, and negatively impacts the credibility and inclusivity of scholarly publishing. This review explores the systemic drivers of editorial endogamy, focusing on institutional governance structures, national research policies, and academic evaluation frameworks that influence editorial board composition in UJs.

Additionally, we review best practices to mitigate negative effects, including increasing editorial transparency, diversifying peer review processes, and strengthening regulatory oversight. Strategies such as rotational editorial leadership, transparent peer review policies, structured regulatory interventions, and cross-institutional collaborations are recommended to balance institutional autonomy with international publishing standards.

The implementation of these measures has the potential to enhance the credibility, inclusivity, and global impact of UJs while preserving their role in supporting local and disciplinary research communities.

Recognizing the constraints faced by many UJs, we propose flexible and scalable solutions to enhance editorial integrity while considering the operational realities of university-based publishing. Effectively addressing editorial endogamy requires coordinated action among universities, journal editors, and policymakers.

URL : s10805-025-09Prevention of Endogamy in the Editorial Boards of University Journals687-z

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09687-z

EN

Preprint policies across journals and publishers in ecology and evolutionary biology

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Marija Purgar, Edward R. Ivimey-Cook, Antica Culina, Joshua D. Wallach

Preprints have the potential to accelerate knowledge dissemination and promote transparency in ecology and evolutionary biology. However, concerns about journal policies regarding prior publication may discourage researchers from preprinting their manuscripts.

Therefore, we identified 230 eligible ecology and evolutionary biology journals, published by 69 different publishers, and assessed both their journal- and publisher-level preprint policies. At the journal level, 119 (51.7%) of the 230 journals included preprint policies in their author guidelines—either through journal-specific policies (109, 47.4%) or by directly referencing their publisher’s preprint policies (10, 4.3%).

Overall, 116 (97.5%) of these journals were supportive of considering preprints for publication. At the publisher level, 26 (37.7%) of the 69 publishers had explicit preprint policies, all of which supported considering preprints for publication. There were 38 (16.5%) journals without journal- or publisher-level preprint policies.

While most journals and publishers were supportive of considering preprints for publication, instructions for authors, such as acceptable locations for posting preprints, timing of preprint posting relative to manuscript submission and requirements to link preprints to final published articles, were lacking.

These findings highlight opportunities for ecology and evolutionary biology journals, along with their publishers, to clarify and refine their preprint policies and instructions for authors.

URL : Preprint policies across journals and publishers in ecology and evolutionary biology

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2025.0524

EN

The role of discussion sections in research articles: the case of health information-seeking studies

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Reijo Savolainen

Introduction. Drawing on the ideas of genre analysis, this article elaborates the role of discussion sections as sites where researchers reflect their contributions to a particular field of study.

Method. A sample of 100 discussions sections of research articles examining health information seeking was scrutinized by means of descriptive quantitative analysis. To obtain a quantitative overview, the percentage distribution of the codes assigned to the 14 constituents of discussion sections was calculated. The main emphasis was laid on qualitative content analysis.

Analysis. The qualitative analysis focused on the content of diverse constituents of discussion sections, for example, interpreting individual research results and reflecting the theoretical contributions of the study. More specifically, the analysis focused on the variation in the constituents´ content. To achieve this, similarities and differences were identified in the ways in which the authors depicted such content per constituent, for example, while summarizing the key findings and reflecting the empirical contribution.

Results. The findings indicate that in discussion sections of research articles on health information-seeking studies, researchers direct their main attention to the interpretation of individual (key) findings. While reflecting their contributions to health-information studies, they also compare their findings in order to identify similarities and differences with prior studies. Moreover, they are active to propose topics for future research. In contrast, researchers in the above domain quite seldom employ analytically demanding strategies by explaining the similarities and differences or reflect the theoretical and methodological implications of their study.

Conclusion. Researchers prefer a conservative approach by seeking confirmatory support for their findings, rather than challenging them by presenting contrasting evidence.

URL : The role of discussion sections in research articles: the case of health information-seeking studies

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47989/ir30341812

FR

Légitimations et subversions de l’Open : pour une analyse de l’openwashing dans la publication scientifique

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Auteurs/Authors : Guillaume Silhol, Hans Dillaerts, Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri

Ce texte propose un état de l’art inédit sur la notion d’openwashing dans l’espace des publications scientifiques. En s’appuyant sur les phénomènes de washing, il aborde une variété de formes de détournement des principes de l’ouverture scientifique.

À partir d’une analyse critique d’une littérature interdisciplinaire, le concept sténographique élaboré est appliqué aux plateformes numériques pour analyser de la déviance à bas bruit et à faible concernement.

L’article apporte une meilleure compréhension de la genèse de l’openwashing à la fois comme concept critique et vecteur de discours de dénonciation de la déviance et de ses évolutions. Enfin, il permet de forger une définition ancrée dans le champ de la communication scientifique ouverte, autant que de légitimer son usage pour appréhender les mécanismes complexes de ses transformations.

HAL : https://hal.science/hal-05363533v1

EN

Ethical and practical implications of AI in academic library research

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Nuno Sousa

This article offers a critical and integrative review of how artificial intelligence (AI) is being incorporated into academic library systems, particularly in the context of scientific research production. Based on 29 studies, the review explores ethical practices, institutional boundaries, and epistemological challenges surrounding AI adoption.

Findings reveal that AI is reshaping scholarly workflows, such as metadata creation, information retrieval, and literature review, while also introducing unresolved ethical concerns, including data privacy, algorithmic bias, academic integrity, and diminished human agency.

The study identifies a misalignment between the rapid pace of AI implementation and the capacity of academic institutions to regulate its use responsibly. Librarians are situated at the intersection of innovation and ethical mediation, often without formal training or institutional support.

The review concludes that AI should not be viewed merely as a functional tool but as a socio-technical agent requiring ethical governance, critical AI literacy, and structural accountability across academic ecosystems.

URL : Ethical and practical implications of AI in academic library research

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352251391753

FR

Enjeux de légitimité dans la médiation scientifique : approche par les usages du livre

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Émilie Kohlmann, Aude Inaudi, Amélie Coulbaut-Lazzarini

Cet article porte sur le statut du livre à la fois dans sa dimension symbolique et fonctionnelle afin d’interroger les évolutions de la médiation scientifique et les tensions entre différentes représentations de la science et du public, dans un univers où se croise une grande diversité d’acteurs.

L’hypothèse est que pour répondre à leur objectif de reconnaissance, les acteurs de la médiation scientifique ont recours à différents éléments symboliques, dont le livre en tant que représentant d’une connaissance scientifique fiable et stabilisée. Objet-frontière, le livre permet d’articuler différents métiers et compétences de la médiation scientifique. Indirectement, il sert à asseoir la légitimité des discours et des acteurs, ainsi qu’à ouvrir sur des dispositifs dans lesquels la place du public est reconsidérée.

URL : https://lesenjeux.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/2025/dossier/06-enjeux-de-legitimite-dans-la-mediation-scientifique-approche-par-les-usages-du-livre/