EN

Tailoring Scientific Knowledge: How Generative AI Personalizes Academic Reading Experiences

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Anna Małgorzata Kamińska

The scientific literature is expanding at an unprecedented pace, making it increasingly difficult for researchers, students, and professionals to extract relevant insights efficiently.

Traditional academic publishing offers static, one-size-fits-all content that does not cater to the diverse backgrounds, expertise levels, and interests of readers. This paper explores how generative AI can dynamically personalize scholarly content by tailoring summaries and key takeaways to individual user profiles.

Nine scientific articles from a single journal issue were used to create the dataset, and prompt engineering was applied to generate tailored insights for exemplary personas: a digital humanities and open science researcher, and a mining and raw materials industry specialist. The effectiveness of AI-generated content modifications in enhancing readability, comprehension, and relevance was evaluated.

The results indicate that generative AI can successfully emphasize different aspects of an article, making it more accessible and engaging to specific audiences. However, challenges such as content oversimplification, potential biases, and ethical considerations remain.

The implications of AI-powered personalization in scholarly communication are discussed, and future research directions are proposed to refine and optimize AI-driven adaptive reading experiences.

URL : Tailoring Scientific Knowledge: How Generative AI Personalizes Academic Reading Experiences

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13020018

FR

Le chantier de la bibliothèque comme dispositif d’accompagnement du changement : Une documentation connivente pour interroger le rapport au temps et à l’espace

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Autrices : Isabelle Fabre, Susan Kovacs

En considérant la dimension symbolique et sociale des temps et des espaces éphémères, nous souhaitons interroger une manière de faire dialoguer diverses formes de documents liés à la médiation de chantiers de rénovation des lieux de culture et de savoir.

Notre approche anthropologique met l’accent sur la bibliothèque en tant que lieu de vie pour expérimenter la puissance heuristique de la documentation comme accompagnement du changement.

URL : Le chantier de la bibliothèque comme dispositif d’accompagnement du changement : Une documentation connivente pour interroger le rapport au temps et à l’espace

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5206/cjils-rcsib.v48i1.22257

EN

The Open Book Environment (OBE) Dashboard: A Tool for Increasing Publisher Transparency for Authors, Librarians, and the Scholarly Community

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Holly Limbert, Dan DeSanto

Introduction: The Open Book Environment (OBE) Dashboard is introduced as a pioneering tool aimed at fostering transparency and clarity in the realm of open access book publishing. In response to the growing need for accessible information for authors, librarians, and stakeholders, this dashboard aggregates data from a multitude of publishers into a centralized platform.

Description of Program/Service: Employing a comprehensive set of criteria, including pricing for book processing charges (BPCs), licensing options, editorial quality statements, and self-archiving policies, the Dashboard evaluates publisher transparency. Through a color-coded system, it visually represents the degree of openness exhibited by each publisher, empowering authors to make informed decisions about where to publish their work.

Next Steps: Looking ahead, the Dashboard’s dynamic nature allows for continuous updates, facilitating its role as an agent for positive change within the scholarly publishing community. As a versatile resource, the OBE Dashboard holds promise in enhancing efficiency, transparency, and accountability in open access book publishing.

Open Book Environment (OBE) Dashboard: https://bit.ly/OBEdashboard
OBE Additions and Edits Form: https://bit.ly/OBEdashboardform
Zenodo Link: https://zenodo.org/records/13366056

URL : The Open Book Environment (OBE) Dashboard: A Tool for Increasing Publisher Transparency for Authors, Librarians, and the Scholarly Community

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18112

EN

Open and impactful academic publishing

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Rosaria Ciriminna, Giovanna Li Petri, Giuseppe Angellotti, Rafael Luque, Mario Pagliaro

Introduction

The advantages of self-archiving research articles on institutional repositories or personal academic websites are numerous and relevant for society and individual researchers. Yet, self-archiving has been adopted by a small minority of active scholars.

Methods

Aiming to further inform educational work on open and impactful academic publishing in the digital era, we posed selected questions to Stevan Harnad 30 years after his “subversive proposal” to maximize research impact by self-archiving scholarly articles in university-hosted or disciplinary online repositories to make published articles openly available.

Results and discussion

Self-archiving is even more needed today than it was when Professor Harnad called for it when the World Wide Web was in its infancy; OA academic publishing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for impactful research; self-archiving on a personal academic website is often more effective than in institutional repositories.

URL : Open and impactful academic publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1544965

EN

Evaluating the predictive capacity of ChatGPT for academic peer review outcomes across multiple platforms

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Mike Thelwall, Abdallah Yaghi

Academic peer review is at the heart of scientific quality control, yet the process is slow and time-consuming. Technology that can predict peer review outcomes may help with this, for example by fast-tracking desk rejection decisions. While previous studies have demonstrated that Large Language Models (LLMs) can predict peer review outcomes to some extent, this paper introduces two new contexts and employs a more robust method—averaging multiple ChatGPT scores.

Averaging 30 ChatGPT predictions, based on reviewer guidelines and using only the submitted titles and abstracts failed to predict peer review outcomes for F1000Research (Spearman’s rho = 0.00). However, it produced mostly weak positive correlations with the quality dimensions of SciPost Physics (rho = 0.25 for validity, rho = 0.25 for originality, rho = 0.20 for significance, and rho = 0.08 for clarity) and a moderate positive correlation for papers from the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (rho = 0.38). Including article full texts increased the correlation for ICLR (rho = 0.46) and slightly improved it for F1000Research (rho = 0.09), with variable effects on the four quality dimension correlations for SciPost LaTeX files.

The use of simple chain-of-thought system prompts slightly increased the correlation for F1000Research (rho = 0.10), marginally reduced it for ICLR (rho = 0.37), and further decreased it for SciPost Physics (rho = 0.16 for validity, rho = 0.18 for originality, rho = 0.18 for significance, and rho = 0.05 for clarity). Overall, the results suggest that in some contexts, ChatGPT can produce weak pre-publication quality predictions.

However, their effectiveness and the optimal strategies for employing them vary considerably between platforms, journals, and conferences. Finally, the most suitable inputs for ChatGPT appear to differ depending on the platform.

URL : Evaluating the predictive capacity of ChatGPT for academic peer review outcomes across multiple platforms

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05287-1

EN

Open access, open infrastructures, and their funding: Learning from histories to more effectively enhance diamond OA ecologies for books

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors  : Kira Hopkins, Kevin Sanders

The decade since the “Bottlenecks in the Open Access System” special issue of JLSC in 2014 has been an expansive one for open access (OA) and OA books in particular. The creation of a scholarly publishing ecosystem that enables works to be freely accessible for readers has been successful in many ways.

However, the underlying politics and economics of OA scholarly publishing often remain opaque or under-interrogated (Lawson et al., 2015). The problems with journal OA funding, specifically regarding inequality of access to publishing, discussed by Bonaccorso et al. (2014) in their contribution to that issue, have also increased and become entrenched as we discuss below.

This entrenchment has been largely via the growth and consolidation of gold OA, “transformative” agreements, and read-and-publish journal deals, which have effectively, and unnecessarily, commodified OA publications. We would argue that this is in direct tension with some of the foundations of contemporary OA.

OA was explicitly described from early principles as not a business model and as aiming to reduce financial barriers from authors, libraries, and other groups (Suber, 2024). We would like to note that, while the main focus of this paper is books, we begin with a discussion of journals. This is because we are focusing on the history, development, and critiques of OA fundings in the intervening ten years following the “Bottlenecks” special issue.

OA journal publishing has been at the forefront of discussions of OA funding, and it has dominated the last decade, and more, of this discussion; it would therefore be remiss of us not to discuss this history, the resulting current landscape of inequity, and the potential ramifications if this were to be transferred to OA books, a more nascent field in general.

URL : Open access, open infrastructures, and their funding: Learning from histories to more effectively enhance diamond OA ecologies for books

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18284

 

EN

Identifying trust cues: how trust in science is mediated in content about science

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors :  Justin T. Schröder, Janise Brück , Lars Guenther

Most public audiences in Germany receive scientific information via a variety of (digital) media; in these contexts, media act as intermediaries of trust in science by providing information that present reasons for public audiences to place their trust in science. T

o describe this process, the study introduces the term “trust cues”. To identify such content-related trust cues, an explorative qualitative content analysis has been applied to German journalistic, populist, social, and other (non-journalistic) online media (“n” = 158). In total, “n” = 1,329 trust cues were coded. The findings emphasize the diversity of mediated trust, with trust cues being connected to dimensions of trust in science (established: expertise, integrity, benevolence; recently introduced: transparency, dialogue).

Through this analysis, the study aims for a better understanding of mediated trust in science. Deriving this finding is crucial since public trust in science is important for individual and collective informed decision-making and crises management.

URL : Identifying trust cues: how trust in science is mediated in content about science

DOI : https://doi.org/10.22323/2.24010206