Catégories
FR

Étude et classification des contextes de citation pour une construction d’indicateurs relationnels sémantiques

Author : Yutong Fei

Depuis la première proposition d’une typologie de catégories sémantiques citationnelles en 1965 par Eugene Garfield, pour mieux comprendre les raisons et les fonctions de l’acte de citer, ce sujet de recherche n’a cessé de susciter l’intérêt de plusieurs disciplines, telles que la sociologie des sciences, la linguistique, la bibliométrie et l’informatique.

Dans cette perspective, les travaux empiriques ont évolué, passant des entretiens sur les motivations de citation à la classification sémantique des contextes de citation, c’est-à-dire les passages textuels entourant une référence dans un article scientifique.

Avec le développement des approches informatiques, cette classification tend aujourd’hui à s’automatiser, donnant lieu à des services à valeur ajoutée intégrés dans les systèmes de recommandation de citations destinés à améliorer la recherche bibliographique.

Or, comprendre la citation suppose d’abord de préciser ce que recouvre la sémantique citationnelle et d’en saisir la genèse. Celle-ci ne se réduit pas à une analyse linguistique, mais reflète les stratégies scientifiques, sociales, rhétoriques, et discursives des auteurs. Les formes de citation résultent ainsi de multiples facteurs, tels que les spécificités disciplinaires, les pratiques de recherche ou encore l’évolution des normes éditoriales au fil du temps. Réduire les contextes de citation à de simples ressources d’entraînement pour des applications industrielles appauvrit la compréhension de la citation, en négligeant les tensions qui structurent cette complexité.

Cet enjeu est au cœur de cette thèse, qui construit un corpus de contextes de citation prenant en compte les facteurs influençant la production du discours citationnel, notamment la diversité disciplinaire et éditoriale, afin de proposer une typologie des différentes manières de citer.

Le corpus réunit 8 358 contextes issus de 157 revues internationales, publiées entre 2020 et 2023, période marquée par une tendance à la standardisation des politiques éditoriales autour des valeurs d’ouverture et de transparence de la recherche. En complément de cette analyse discursive, une étude exploratoire fondée sur des entretiens semi-directifs avec trois acteurs phares du marché de la citation a été réalisée pour interroger l’usage industriel des contextes de citation.

Les 50 catégories de citation dégagées dans cette thèse révèlent une grande diversité sémantique, façonnée par la tension entre les caractéristiques disciplinaires du discours citationnel et la standardisation éditoriale. Les différentes manières de construire le savoir propre à chaque discipline se reflètent dans cette diversité, telle qu’elle s’exprime à travers la dimension discursive de la citation, car la construction du savoir et celle du discours sont indissociables, particulièrement dans les SHS.

Par ailleurs, la structuration de cette diversité discursive par les lignes éditoriales constitue un enjeu industriel, en lien avec la future exploitation des contextes de citation dans les bases de données. Les résultats de cette recherche doctorale montrent les effets des cadres politiques et institutionnels de la recherche sur les cultures discursives de la citation.

De même, ils montrent de quelle manière l’implémentation des contextes de citation ouvre la voie à de nouvelles formes d’exploitation de la publication scientifique ouverte, qui offre aux acteurs du marché des opportunités renouvelées de marchandisation.

URL : https://hal.science/tel-05687014v2

Catégories
EN

The Limited Communication of Corrections to Users of Scholarly Platforms

Authors : Wytske M. Hepkema, Frédérique Bordignon, Willem Halffman

Formal corrections of research publications should be clearly communicated to users of the scholarly literature, especially when these corrections have consequences for reported knowledge.

However, the information that a publication was corrected is not always shared and indicated clearly. To test correction communication, we formed a corpus of publications with corrections most likely consequential to their reported knowledge.

To this end, we selected 3177 publications that were recently corrected according to Crossref and that received at least two comments on PubPeer. We used this corpus as a probe to assess correction communication on a range of scholarly platforms.

The majority of these platforms does not indicate the presence of corrections together with the entry for these publications: Web of Science, OpenAlex, Dimensions, Google Scholar, Lens, Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote and Elicit.

Those that do indicate the existence of corrections, do so for nearly all corrected publications as follows: Scopus 90.8%, PubMed 98.7%, EuropePMC 98.8%, Scite.ai 99.7% and the journal’s webpage 94.4%. Even when the presence of a correction is communicated, this is not always indicated clearly.

Readers of the scholarly literature might miss corrections when they are communicated under a generic header such as ‘referred to by’, or only indicated by a small line of text in the same colours as the rest of the page.

We provide suggestions for improved communication of corrections through better integration of information across platforms, improved labelling on platforms and the development of correction communication standards.

URL : The Limited Communication of Corrections to Users of Scholarly Platforms

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2103

Catégories
EN

Awareness of Predatory Journals and Open Access: an online survey among Italian Researchers

Authors : Silvia Maccarini, Núria Bautista-Puig, Eva Méndez

This study investigates Italian academics’ awareness, perceptions, and experiences of predatory publishing, a phenomenon recognised as a threat to research integrity and scholarly communication. An online survey of researchers affiliated with Italian universities and research institutes yielded 258 responses, which were analysed.

Results show that awareness of predatory publishing is high: almost half of respondents (47.9%) had discussed it with colleagues, and more than one-third had encountered it as authors, reviewers, or readers. Familiarity varies across dimensions, with predatory journals and spam emails being most recognised, and fraudulent websites and podcasts less so. 30% of participants reported personal experience of editorial misleading, mainly as authors, and 76% had received spam or phishing solicitations. Significant differences emerged by professional title and age, with senior researchers demonstrating greater awareness and greater exposure to training.

Most participants perceive predatory publishing as having a moderate or high impact on scientific integrity, but only half have received training in research ethics or use verification tools. Open-ended responses show concern about the “publish or perish” culture and the difficulty of distinguishing legitimate from predatory journals. The findings highlight awareness and vulnerability in the Italian academic publishing landscape.

URL : Awareness of Predatory Journals and Open Access: an online survey among Italian Researchers

DOI : https://doi.org/10.36253/jlis.it-720

Catégories
EN

Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Publishing: Citation Impact and Thematic Trends

Author : Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh

Introduction: The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has a significant impact on scientific publishing and librarianship. This study explores the citation impact and thematic patterns of AI-related research in scientific publishing through four objectives: (1) to analyze bibliometric characteristics; (2) to evaluate citation performance using normalized metrics; (3) to identify major thematic trends; and (4) to review AI-related publications that specifically address librarianship and examine their implications for library practices.

Methods: A bibliometric analysis was conducted on 295 AI-related publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection. Citation performance was assessed using two field-normalized metrics from Clarivate’s InCites platform: the Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI) and the Journal Normalized Citation Impact (JNCI). To determine whether the median CNCI and JNCI values differed significantly from the category and journal benchmarks, a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed. Sub-themes within AI-related research were identified through thematic analysis. Additionally, to highlight important themes and professional implications, publications that specifically mention libraries, librarians, or librarianship were reviewed.

Results: The median CNCI was 2.7, and the median JNCI was 2.2, both significantly above the benchmark of 1.0 (P < .001). This indicates that AI-related research in scientific publishing receives significantly more citations than comparable publications within the same subject areas and journals. Seven sub-themes were identified, all showing above-average citation impact. Among these, themes focused on frameworks, policies, and ethical guidelines for AI integration achieved the highest normalized citation scores. Additionally, four publications focusing specifically on librarianship explored how AI intersects with open access and scholarly communication, ethics and governance, professional training, the development of machine-readable collections, and the integration of AI technologies into library services.

Discussion: These findings suggest that AI-related research has rapidly emerged as a highly influential area within scientific publishing. The variety of themes demonstrates the broad impact of AI technologies on scientific publishing.

Conclusion: Research on AI in scientific publishing is a rapidly growing and dynamic area, notable for its high citation impact, broad thematic scope, and growing influence on libraries and librarianship.

URL : Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Publishing: Citation Impact and Thematic Trends

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.20363

Catégories
EN

Research integrity and open access models: insights from Retraction Watch and OpenAlex

Author : Ben Rawlins

This study examines the relationship between research integrity and open access (OA) publishing models using data from Retraction Watch and OpenAlex. Analysing 60,608 retracted publications from 2009 to 2024, the article traces how retraction patterns have shifted alongside the expansion of OA, with gold OA surpassing closed access as the dominant modality among retracted articles by 2023.

The analysis also highlights the economic dimensions of research integrity and OA, with an estimated US$41.9 million in article processing charges (APCs) collected by publishers for research that was later retracted.

These findings raise concerns about APC‑based publishing models that directly link publisher revenue to publication volume, creating structural tensions for editorial oversight and quality control. Rather than framing OA as inherently more or less prone to integrity failures, the article argues that these challenges reflect broader incentive structures within contemporary scholarly publishing.

Addressing them will require co‑ordinated governance efforts among publishers, funders, libraries and research institutions to ensure that OA is matched by accountability, transparency and trust in scholarly research.

URL : Research integrity and open access models: insights from Retraction Watch and OpenAlex

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.763

Catégories
EN

The Rise of Diamond Open Access Journals in Earth Sciences: Past Developments, Present Tensions, and Future Pathways

Authors : Olivier Pourret, Maëlis Arnould, Thibault Duretz, James Ian Farquharson, Dasapta Erwin Irawan, Larry Syu-Heng Lai, Alice Lefebvre, Craig Magee, Marc-Alban Millet, Samantha Teplitzky, Camille Thomas, Romain Vaucher, Lauren Waszek, Mark A Wieczorek, Thomas William Wong Hearing

Over roughly the last decade, a visible, community-led Diamond Open Access (OA) ecosystem has emerged in the Earth sciences, not as a departure from tradition, but as the latest expression of a long-standing culture of open, society-supported scholarly communication.

While free-to-read, fee-free publishing initiatives have deep roots in the field, predating the Diamond terminology by decades and encompassing regional infrastructures and institutional serial publishing by geological surveys and learned societies, the period since the mid-2010s has brought a new wave of explicitly Diamond-identified, community-governed disciplinary journals that have transformed the visibility and ambition of this model. This article analyzes that transition through a field-specific lens, taking journals such as Volcanica, Seismica, Tektonika, Geomorphica, Geodynamica, Sedimentologika, Advances in Geochemistry and Cosmochemistry, Open Paleontology, Planetary Research, and Journal of Studies of Earth’s Deep Interior as emblematic of a broader shift in scholarly communication.

Building on current Diamond OA debates, we argue that Earth sciences Diamond journals are not merely “no-fee” outlets but sociotechnical experiments in reclaiming agency, redistributing publishing labor, and redefining value away from commercial metrics. This article develops three claims. First, the Earth sciences Diamond turn has been enabled by existing community infrastructures and high levels of volunteer coordination, but it remains uneven and fragile.

Second, Diamond models strengthen equity for authors and readers while exposing unresolved tensions around labor sustainability, institutional support, and recognition regimes still structured by prestige metrics. Third, Earth sciences offer a strategically important testbed for a wider transition towards commons-based scholarly communication, especially where global fieldwork, data justice, and decolonizing commitments demand alternatives to the pay-to-read and pay-to-publish systems.

We conclude that the next decade should prioritize durable funding compacts, shared technical infrastructure, and reform of research assessment so that Diamond OA can scale without reproducing extractive or technocratic governance.

URL : The Rise of Diamond Open Access Journals in Earth Sciences: Past Developments, Present Tensions, and Future Pathways

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31223/X56J5P

Catégories
EN

Modernizing Legal Scholarship: Toward Open Access Compliance

Authors : Ana Rogers-Butterworth, Melissa Moreau

Introduction and Literature Review: Legal research often operates outside conventional academic scholarship standards, characterized by a proliferation of student-edited journals and a notable absence of rigorous peer review. While some law journals have sought to align with established academic standards, many have struggled to keep pace with emerging open access (OA) requirements, such as those outlined by Plan S. As funding agencies increasingly mandate immediate OA for research outputs, the field of legal scholarly communications faces urgent needs for adaptation and modernization.

Methods: This study analyzed the OA policies of 384 journals that included articles and reviews authored by Canadian law faculty members. Data were extracted from Web of Science and Open Alex, focusing on six law faculties across Canada known for their high research output. Quantitative methods were used to assess publishing policies concerning OA principles.

Results: The findings reveal a strong preference for hybrid OA journals, particularly those with an international focus, often produced by interdisciplinary publishers. Diamond OA journals, primarily centered in North America, ranked second. Notably, a significant number of diamond OA journals fail to meet established OA standards, alongside a considerable presence of closed-access law journals.

Discussion and Conclusion: A consistent theme among law-specific publications, whether from academic faculty or corporate law publishers, is a pervasive lack of compliance with OA standards and a limited understanding of their implications. This underscores the imperative for further education and policy reform within the legal publishing ecosystem to enhance access and uphold the principles of open scholarship.

URL : Modernizing Legal Scholarship: Toward Open Access Compliance

DOI : https://doi.org/%2010.31274/jlsc.20259