Archives des mots-clés : Scholarly Publishing

‘As of my last knowledge update’: How is content generated by ChatGPT infiltrating scientific papers published in premier journals?

Posté le par

Author : Artur Strzelecki

The aim of this paper is to highlight the situation whereby content generated by the large language model ChatGPT is appearing in peer-reviewed papers in journals by recognized publishers. The paper demonstrates how to identify sections that indicate that a text fragment was generated, that is, entirely created, by ChatGPT. To prepare an illustrative compilation of papers that appear in journals indexed in the Web of Science and Scopus databases and possessing Impact Factor and CiteScore indicators, the SPAR4SLR method was used, which is mainly applied in systematic literature reviews.

Three main findings are presented: in highly regarded premier journals, articles appear that bear the hallmarks of the content generated by AI large language models, whose use was not declared by the authors (1); many of these identified papers are already receiving citations from other scientific works, also placed in journals found in scientific databases (2); and, most of the identified papers belong to the disciplines of medicine and computer science, but there are also articles that belong to disciplines such as environmental science, engineering, sociology, education, economics and management (3).

This paper aims to continue and add to the recently initiated discussion on the use of large language models like ChatGPT in the creation of scholarly works.

URL : ‘As of my last knowledge update’: How is content generated by ChatGPT infiltrating scientific papers published in premier journals?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1650

Rejected papers in academic publishing: Turning negatives into positives to maximize paper acceptance

Posté le par

Authors : Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Maryna Nazarovets

There are ample reasons why papers might get rejected by peer-reviewed journals, and the experience can be, especially for those who have had little experience, sobering. When papers get rejected a number of times, that may signal that there are problems with the paper (e.g., weak methodology or lack of robust analyses), that it is insufficiently developed, is poorly written, or that it is too topic-specific and needs to find an appropriate niche journal.

In the case of a single or multiple rejections, whenever there is feedback from a journal, as well as reasons for rejection, this provides a useful signal for improving the paper before it is resubmitted to another journal. This article examines literature related to the rejection of papers in academic journals, encompassing the opinions and experiences offered by authors, as well as advice suggested by editors, allowing readers and authors who experience rejections to reflect on the possible reasons that may have led to that outcome.

Many papers related to this topic were published as editorials or opinions, offering advice on how to improve aspects of a submitted paper in order to increase its chances of acceptance.

URL : Rejected papers in academic publishing: Turning negatives into positives to maximize paper acceptance

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1649

 

Can scholarly publishers change the world? The role of the SDGs within the publishing industry

Posté le par

Authors : Stephanie Dawson, Agata Morka, Charlie Rapple, Nikesh Gosalia, Ritu Dhand

The United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim to eradicate poverty and inequality, protect the planet, and ensure health, justice, and prosperity for all, emphasizing inclusivity. Within the realm of scholarly publishing, the panel discussion Can scholarly publishers change the world? The role of the SDGs within the publishing industry held at Academic Publishing in Europe 2024, highlighted the business advantages of aligning with SDGs and made a plea to reshape the narrative beyond mere moral obligation as well as to galvanize stakeholders to take action and promote engagement, offering a clear direction.

This paper expands on the panel discussion, which was moderated by Stephanie Dawson, CEO, ScienceOpen. Panellists were Agata Morka, Regional Director, Publishing Development, PLOS, Charlie Rapple, Chief Customer Officer and Co-founder, Kudos, Nikesh Gosalia, President Global Academic and Publisher Relations, Cactus Communications, and Ritu Dhand, Chief Scientific Officer, Springer Nature.

URL : Can scholarly publishers change the world? The role of the SDGs within the publishing industry

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-240017

Open Access APCs Are Already a Scam”: Knowledge and Opinions of Open Access and Article Processing Charges From Faculty at a Large Public University

Posté le par

Authors : Heidi M. Winkler

Introduction:

In the 2020s, open access (OA) continues to act as a challenging force in the ever-shifting landscape of scholarly communication. The objective of this study was to survey faculty at an R1 research institution about their perspectives on OA publishing, article processing charges (APCs), and knowledge of the institutional repository (IR).

Methods:

This study employed an anonymous online survey of 415 faculty members, with a response rate of 12.77% (53 responses). The survey collected both quantitative and qualitative data from respondents.

Results and Discussion:

Results showed engagement with OA publishing but skepticism of APCs as a reasonable alternative to subscription-based funding models. Survey respondents were also mostly unaware of the library’s IR self-archiving service.

Conclusion:

For-profit OA business models do not serve academics, and they and scholarly communications librarians should better collaborate to advocate for transitioning away from APCs. The article concludes by sharing how the author changed practice based on the results of the study.

URL : Open Access APCs Are Already a Scam”: Knowledge and Opinions of Open Access and Article Processing Charges From Faculty at a Large Public University

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.17647

Enhancing Research Methodology and Academic Publishing: A Structured Framework for Quality and Integrity

Posté le par

Authors : Md. Jalil Piran, Nguyen H. Tran

Following a brief introduction to research, research processes, research types, papers, reviews, and evaluations, this paper presents a structured framework for addressing inconsistencies in research methodology, technical writing, quality assessment, and publication standards across academic disciplines. Using a four-dimensional evaluation model that focuses on 1) technical content, 2) structural coherence, 3) writing precision, and 4) ethical integrity, this framework not only standardizes review and publication processes but also serves as a practical guide for authors in preparing high-quality manuscripts. Each of these four dimensions cannot be compromised for the sake of another.

Following that, we discuss the components of a research paper adhering to the four-dimensional evaluation model in detail by providing guidelines and principles. By aligning manuscripts with journal standards, reducing review bias, and enhancing transparency, the framework contributes to more reliable and reproducible research results. Moreover, by strengthening cross-disciplinary credibility, improving publication consistency, and fostering public trust in academic literature, this initiative is expected to positively influence both research quality and scholarly publishing’s reputation.

Arxiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.05683

The roles of special issues in scholarly communication in a changing publishing landscape

Posté le par

Authors : Robyn M. Gleasner, Akshay Sood

This paper aims to enhance the understanding of the role of special issues in the evolving landscape of academic publishing, offering insights for publishers, editors, guest editors, and researchers, including how new technologies influence transparency in publishing processes, open access models, and metrics for success.

Based upon original analysis, the paper also discusses the importance of special issues and opportunities to support diversity, equity, and inclusivity in special issue publishing programmes. The goal is to contribute to the discussion of maintaining research integrity through special issues, acknowledging their significance in scholarly communication, while offering suggestions for the future.

URL : The roles of special issues in scholarly communication in a changing publishing landscape

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1635

Fundamental problems in the peer-review process and stakeholders’ perceptions of potential suggestions for improvement

Posté le par

Authors : Cigdem Kadaifci, Erkan Isikli, Y. Ilker Topcu

Academic papers are essential for researchers to communicate their work to their peers and industry experts. Quality research is published in prestigious scientific journals, and is considered as part of the hiring and promotion criteria at leading universities. Scientific journals conduct impartial and anonymous peer reviews of submitted manuscripts; however, individuals involved in this process may encounter issues related to the duration, impartiality, and transparency of these reviews.

To explore these concerns, we created a questionnaire based on a comprehensive review of related literature and expert opinions, which was distributed to all stakeholders (authors, reviewers, and editors) who participated in the peer-review process from a variety of countries and disciplines. Their opinions on the primary issues during the process and suggestions for improvement were collected. The data were then analysed based on various groups, such as gender, country of residence, and contribution type, using appropriate multivariate statistical techniques to determine the perceptions and experiences of participants in the peer-review process.

The results showed that unethical behaviour was not uncommon and that editors and experienced reviewers encountered it more frequently. Women and academics from Türkiye were more likely to experience ethical violations and perceived them as more ethically severe. Incentives and stakeholder involvement were seen as ways to enhance the quality and impartiality of peer review. The scale developed can serve as a useful tool for addressing difficulties in the peer-review process and improving its effectiveness and performance.

URL : Fundamental problems in the peer-review process and stakeholders’ perceptions of potential suggestions for improvement

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1637