Étiquette : Scholarly Publishing

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

Catégories
EN

AI In Academic Publishing for Non-Native English Speakers: The Good, the Bot, and the Ugly

Authors : Talip Gönülal, Ramazan Güçlü, Salih Güçlü

This exploratory study investigated the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) tools on academic publishing for non-native English-speaking researchers. Through a mixed-methods convergent parallel design, it examined how these scholars utilize AI tools, their perceived benefits, and concerns regarding AI’s influence on academic publishing.

Data were collected from 105 non-native English-speaking academics coming from 25 language backgrounds. Participants primarily employed AI tools for grammar improvement, writing style enhancement, and translation, while maintaining control over higher-level intellectual tasks such as organizing manuscripts.

Three key dimensions of the perceived impact of AI were identified in this study: the good, reducing linguistic inequalities by improving paper quality and decreasing language-related challenges; the bad, involving inaccurate or misleading AI suggestions, over-reliance on AI tools, and diminished engagement with manuscripts; and the ugly, characterized by failure to disclose AI use, lack of clear guidelines for responsible AI integration in research, homogenization of academic writing, and the emergence of new forms of inequality.

The study concluded with several recommendations for individual researchers, academic institutions, and publishers and journals to promote the ethical and effective use of AI in academic publishing.

URL : AI In Academic Publishing for Non-Native English Speakers: The Good, the Bot, and the Ugly

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2070

Catégories
FR

Les effets ambivalents de l’IA sur les marges féminisées de la chaîne éditoriale scientifique. Le cas des traductrices et éditrices de sciences humaines et sociales

Autrice : Lison Burlat

Cet article interroge les effets ambivalents du déploiement, en France, de l’intelligence artificielle générative (IAg) sur deux activités professionnelles féminisées de « soutien à la recherche » : la traduction et l’édition de sciences humaines et sociales. Il s’inscrit dans une perspective croisant les travaux de sociologie des professions et du travail féminin face aux technologies et ceux de la traductologie féministe.

Une première partie souligne que l’IAg révèle des luttes de juridiction préexistantes entre chercheur·ses, éditrices et traductrices, à replacer dans un contexte socio-économique spécifique. Une seconde partie montre qu’éditrices et traductrices ne défendent pas à armes égales leur territoire professionnel dans ce contexte.

Le premier groupe, plus structuré, entend se saisir de l’IAg pour requalifier son activité. Le second, plus fragmenté et soumis aux évolutions de la demande, est au contraire déqualifié par la relégation à la post-édition, voire est évacué de la chaîne.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3917/nqf.451.0069

Catégories
EN

The Age of APCs: Corresponding Author Approaches to Article Processing Charges and Open Access

Authors : Mitchell Scott, Ben Rawlins

Introduction

As open access and APCs reshape scholarly publishing, and with the University of Kentucky Libraries opting out of large transformative agreements (TA), this study explores how affiliated corresponding authors navigate APCs in relation to their personal, disciplinary, and institutional values.

Literature Review

The literature shows that faculty have mixed feelings about open access (OA) publishing, shaped by things like discipline, age, and concerns about quality and cost; but many are motivated by increased visibility and funder requirements, using a range of methods to cover APCs, from grants and institutional support to personal funds, with big differences across disciplines.

Methods

This study investigated how University of Kentucky-affiliated corresponding authors manage Article Processing Charges (APCs) and their perspectives on OA publishing through surveys and eight semistructured interviews with 383 unique authors identified from Scopus data for 2023–2024 OA publications.

Findings

Using Scopus to identify 383 University of Kentucky-affiliated corresponding authors of 2023– 2024 OA publications, this study explored how they manage APCs and view OA publishing through a survey and eight follow-up semistructured interviews.

Discussion

The discussion highlights key aspects of APC-driven OA, including authors’ experiences with paying for APCs, journals flipping to Gold OA, and difficulty with peer review, while also showing that the University of Kentucky is already spending significant funds on APCs. Conclusion: This study reveals corresponding authors’ conflicting views on transformative agreements, valued for easing APC burdens but seen as exploitative, while exposing funding inequities at the University of Kentucky and underscoring the need for a more coordinated OA strategy.

URL : The Age of APCs: Corresponding Author Approaches to Article Processing Charges and Open Access

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.20329

Catégories
EN

Diverse roles of twitter in research evaluation: original tweets and retweets capture different types of engagements with scholarly articles

Authors :  Ashraf Maleki, Kim Holmberg

Altmetrics need to be more critically assessed in terms of the extent to which they reflect impact and quality of research compared to popularity or mere attention. Twitter (now rebranded as X) is a popular platform to, among other things, discuss and share scientific articles.

Earlier altmetric studies have often focused on investigating whether the number of tweets mentioning scientific articles could be used as an indicator of scientific impact or attention, with results showing weak to moderate correlations with citation counts. But all tweets may not be equal, as original tweets and retweets may reflect different levels of engagement and impact. Using a dataset of over 330,000 PLOS publications, this study explores whether these two forms of Twitter activity correlate differently with traditional citation metrics and how these relationships vary across disciplines.

The findings showed the correlation between citations and original tweets was consistently higher than that between citations and retweets and significant weak or moderate, but higher in Social Science and Humanities than in Natural Science, Engineering and Medicine fields. Also, including zero citation counts improved the correlation coefficients for original tweets, but reduced that of retweets.

This indicates that original tweets may be more aligned with citation counts as an indicator of scholarly impact, whereas retweets might reflect broader dissemination and popularity. In conclusion, tweets and retweets are different altmetric indicators and should be considered as two different metrics and analysed separately.

URL : Diverse roles of twitter in research evaluation: original tweets and retweets capture different types of engagements with scholarly articles

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvag014