Étiquette : Scholarly Publishing

Open access journals lack image accessibility guidelines

Auteur de l’article Par Hans Dillaerts
Date de l’article 12 février 2026

Authors : Kaitlin Stack Whitney, Julia Perrone, Christie A. Bahlai

In recent decades, there has been a move to “open” science and research. One component of open access is “accessibility,” often used to mean that data and other products are free to use by others. However, accessibility also refers to considering and meeting the needs of people with disabilities.

Our objective was to evaluate how open access journals incorporate disability accessibility as part of publishing. Using a random sample of 300 English-language journals and image accessibility as a lens, we assessed author guidelines. Of 289 journals with guidelines, 38 (13%) included color choice, six (∼2%) included contrast ratios, and none included alternative text.

We also assessed the open access statements for the same 300 journals to understand how they conceive of openness and accessibility. Of the 298 journals with open access statements, 228 (∼77%) included the words access or accessibility. Yet none included disability or disabled and only two journals (<1%) mentioned inclusive or inclusion.

Our findings indicate that the open access journals sampled are not considering disability accessibility in their submission guidelines or open access frameworks. Incorporating disability accessibility into open scholarship considerations is critical to bridge, and not exacerbate, information inequalities for people with disabilities.

URL : Open access journals lack image accessibility guidelines

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00338

Étiquettes accessibility, Christie A. Bahlai, Julia Perrone, Kaitlin Stack Whitney, open access, open access journals, Scholarly Publishing, scientific communication

Can ChatGPT write better scientific titles? A comparative evaluation of human-written and AI-generated titles

Auteur de l’article Par Hans Dillaerts
Date de l’article 9 février 2026

Authors : Paul Sebo, Bing Nie, Ting Wang

Background

Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are increasingly used in scientific writing, yet little is known about how AI-generated scientific titles are perceived by researchers in terms of quality.

Objective

To compare the perceived alignment with the abstract content (as a surrogate for perceived accuracy), appeal, and overall preference for AI-generated versus human-written scientific titles.

Methods

We conducted a blinded comparative study with 21 researchers from diverse academic backgrounds. A random sample of 50 original titles was selected from 10 high-impact general internal medicine journals. For each title, an alternative version was generated using GPT-4.0. Each rater evaluated 50 pairs of titles, each pair consisting of one original and one AI-generated version, without knowing the source of the titles or the purpose of the study.

For each pair, raters independently assessed both titles on perceived alignment with the abstract content and appeal, and indicated their overall preference. We analyzed alignment and appeal using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and mixed-effects ordinal logistic regressions, preferences using McNemar’s test and mixed-effects logistic regression, and inter-rater agreement with Gwet’s AC.
Results

AI-generated titles received significantly higher ratings for both perceived alignment with the abstract content (mean 7.9 vs. 6.7, p-value <0.001) and appeal (mean 7.1 vs. 6.7, p-value <0.001) than human-written titles. The odds of preferring an AI-generated title were 1.7 times higher (p-value =0.001), with 61.8% of 1,049 paired judgments favoring the AI version. Inter-rater agreement was moderate to substantial (Gwet’s AC: 0.54–0.70).

Conclusions

AI-generated titles were rated more favorably than human-written titles within the context of this study in terms of perceived alignment with the abstract content, appeal, and preference, suggesting that LLMs may enhance the effectiveness of scientific communication. These findings support the responsible integration of AI tools in research.

URL : Can ChatGPT write better scientific titles? A comparative evaluation of human-written and AI-generated titles

DOI : https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.173647.2

Étiquettes authorship, Bing Nie, ChatGPT, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Paul Sebo, Scholarly Publishing, scientific communication, Ting Wang

Artificial intelligence in academic practices and policy discourses across ‘Big 5’ publishers

Auteur de l’article Par Hans Dillaerts
Date de l’article 5 février 2026

Authors : Gergely Ferenc Lendvai, Aczél Petra

The present study investigates how the five largest academic publishers (Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE) are responding to the epistemic and procedural challenges posed by generative AI through formal policy frameworks.

Situated within ongoing debates about the boundaries of authorship and the governance of AI-generated content, our research aims to critically assess the discursive and regulatory contours of publishers’ authorship guidelines (PGs).

We employed a multi-method design that combines qualitative coding, semantic network analysis, and comparative matrix visualization to examine the official policy texts collected from each publisher’s website. Findings reveal a foundational consensus across all five publishers in prohibiting AI systems from being credited as authors and in mandating disclosure of AI usage.

However, beyond this shared baseline, marked divergences emerge in the scope, specificity, and normative framing of AI policies. Co-occurrence and semantic analyses underline the centrality of ‘authorship’, ‘ethics’, and ‘accountability’ in AI discourse. Structural similarity measures further reveal alignment among Wiley, Elsevier, and Taylor & Francis, with Springer as a clear outlier.

Our results point to an unsettled regulatory landscape where policies serve not only as instruments of governance but also as performative assertions of institutional identity and legitimacy.

Consequently, the fragmented field of PG highlights the need for harmonized, inclusive, and enforceable frameworks that recognize both the potential and risks of AI in scholarly communication.

URL : Artificial intelligence in academic practices and policy discourses across ‘Big 5’ publishers

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvag004

Étiquettes Aczél Petra, Artificial intelligence, Elsevier, Gergely Ferenc Lendvai, Sage, Scholarly Publishing, scholarly publishing market, scientific communication, Springer, Taylor & Francis, Wiley

How multilingual is scholarly communication? Mapping the global distribution of languages in publications and citations

Auteur de l’article Par Hans Dillaerts
Date de l’article 30 janvier 2026

Authors : Carolina Pradier, Lucía Céspedes, Vincent Larivière

Language is a major source of systemic inequities in science, particularly among scholars whose first language is not English. Studies have examined scientists’ linguistic practices in specific contexts; few, however, have provided a global analysis of multilingualism in science.

Using two major bibliometric databases (OpenAlex and Dimensions), we provide a large-scale analysis of linguistic diversity in science, considering both the language of publications (N = 87,577,942) and of cited references (N = 1,480,570,087).

For the 1990–2023 period, we find that only Indonesian, Portuguese, and Spanish have expanded at a faster pace than English. Country-level analyses show that this trend is due to the growing strength of the Latin American and Indonesian academic circuits. Our results also confirm the same-language preference phenomenon (particularly for languages other than English), the strong connection between multilingualism and bibliodiversity, and that social sciences and humanities are the least English-dominated fields.

Our findings suggest that policies recognizing the value of both national-language and English-language publications have had a concrete impact on the distribution of languages in the global field of scholarly communication.

URL : How multilingual is scholarly communication? Mapping the global distribution of languages in publications and citations

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.70055

Étiquettes Carolina Pradier, Lucía Céspedes, multilingual, Scholarly Publishing, Vincent Larivière

Pursuing transparency: How research performing organizations in Germany collect data on publication costs

Auteur de l’article Par Hans Dillaerts
Date de l’article 15 janvier 2026

Authors : Dorothea Strecker, Heinz Pampel, Jonas Höfting

This article presents the results of a survey conducted in 2024 among research performing organizations (RPOs) in Germany on how they collect data on publication costs. Of the 583 invitees, 258 (44.3%) completed the questionnaire.

This survey is the first comprehensive study on the recording of publication costs at RPOs in Germany.

The results show that the majority of surveyed RPOs recorded publication costs at least in part. However, procedures in this regard were often non-binding. Respondents’ ratings of the reliability of the collection of data on publication costs varied by the source of publication funding.

Eighty percent of respondents rated the contribution of collecting data on publication costs to shaping the open access transformation as « very important » or « important. » Yet, these data were used as a basis for strategic decisions in only 59% of the surveyed RPOs.

Moreover, most respondents considered the implementation of an information budget at their institutions by 2025 unlikely. We discuss the implications of these findings for the open access transformation.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.08340

Étiquettes article-processing charges, Dorothea Strecker, Germany, Heinz Pampel, Jonas Höfting, Scholarly Publishing, scientific communication

The Drain of Scientific Publishing

Auteur de l’article Par Hans Dillaerts
Date de l’article 16 décembre 2025

Authors : Fernanda Beigel, Dan Brockington, Paolo Crosetto, Gemma Derrick, Aileen Fyfe, Pablo Gomez Barreiro, Mark A. Hanson, Stefanie Haustein, Vincent Larivière, Christine Noe, Stephen Pinfield, James Wilsdon

The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science.

We need the most powerful members of the research community, funders, governments and Universities, to lead the drive to re-communalise publishing to serve science not the market.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.04820

Étiquettes Aileen Fyfe, Christine Noe, Dan Brockington, Fernanda Beigel, Gemma Derrick, James Wilsdon, Mark A. Hanson, Pablo Gómez Barreiro, Paolo Crosetto, Scholarly Publishing, scientific communication, Stefanie Haustein, Stephen Pinfield, Vincent Larivière