Étiquette : Scholarly Publishing

Catégories
EN

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

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

Catégories
EN

The Drain of Scientific Publishing

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

Catégories
EN

The Modal Mode of Thinking about Scholarly Publishing

Author : Jefferson Pooley

The essay argues that the study of scholarly communication would benefit from attending to a “modal” sensibility—that is, a self-conscious sensitivity to the differences that different mediums make in understanding published works of scholarship.

The essay critiques the unreflective textualism that dominates the conversation on publishing. The claim is that the primacy of text, as the sovereign medium of academic communication, is a largely invisible parochialism.

The essay points to examples and traditions of multi-modal publishing as an entry point to taking the medium-specificity of publishing formats as an object of analysis. Such experimentation has followed, sometimes closely, the emergence of new mediums of storage and transmission within the societies that scholars work.

The mid-twentieth century birth of the modern medium concept made multi-modality a conceivable, self-conscious project. Even so, the discourse on academic publishing has rarely registered the implications, including for inherited text-based formats.

The essay concludes with a call for media scholars, curiously underrepresented in the discourse, to take up this task, with reference to pioneering works in the field.

URL : The Modal Mode of Thinking about Scholarly Publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3998/jep.8757

Catégories
EN

Why the Current Model oAcademic Publishing Is Ethically Flawed—and What We Can Do to Change It

Author : Emilia Kaczmarek

This article offers a reasoned call for urgent reform of the academic journal publishing system. It focuses on the ethical flaws of the current for-profit model. This model enables the transfer of public funds into the profit margins of private companies that add no meaningful value to research and even limit access to knowledge.

The article describes how feedback loops in metrics used in the evaluation of scientific publishing exacerbate structural inequalities and make it difficult to break out of the system. Moreover, the opportunity for easy profit attracts dishonest actors and fuels the rise of predatory journals, which in turn corrodes public trust in science.

Without systemic reforms, the current system could also undermine artificial intelligence–driven research outcomes by enabling models to be trained on a growing number of substandard scientific publications. The article concludes with ten specific proposals for action, aimed at stimulating further discussion within and beyond academia.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2025-0047

Catégories
FR

Outreach, ou la construction « légitime » du positionnement des grands groupes de l’édition scientifique dans le champ de la communication des sciences

Autrice/Author : Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri

Le texte vise à rendre compte de la manière dont la restructuration du secteur de la publication autour des modèles ouverts et des plateformes numériques a conduit les grands groupes de l’édition scientifique à envisager le champ de la communication des sciences comme une extension du champ de la communication scientifique pour leurs luttes de domination et de légitimation.

L’exemple des revues The Lancet et Nature, respectivement médicale et généraliste, et leurs stratégies éditoriales sur leurs comptes de réseaux sociaux grand public, montre la variété, la richesse et la complexité des contenus diffusés, au service d’une médiation socio-scientifique, qui fidélise un vivier de lecteurs et d’auteurs, mais qui permet aussi de se démarquer et de se distinguer vis-à-vis de leurs concurrents.

URL : https://lesenjeux.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/2025/dossier/03-outreach-ou-la-construction-legitime-du-positionnement-des-grands-groupes-de-ledition-scientifique-dans-le-champ-de-la-communication-des-sciences/

Catégories
EN

Prevention of Endogamy in the Editorial Boards of University Journals

Authors : Maryna Nazarovets, Serhii Nazarovets

Editorial endogamy, the over-representation of scholars affiliated with a journal’s host institution on its editorial board, is a widespread phenomenon in university journals (UJs). This practice is often shaped by institutional traditions, resource limitations, internal loyalty, promotion incentives, and opaque selection practices.

While some degree of institutional representation is inevitable, excessive editorial endogamy raises concerns about peer review integrity, international visibility, and negatively impacts the credibility and inclusivity of scholarly publishing. This review explores the systemic drivers of editorial endogamy, focusing on institutional governance structures, national research policies, and academic evaluation frameworks that influence editorial board composition in UJs.

Additionally, we review best practices to mitigate negative effects, including increasing editorial transparency, diversifying peer review processes, and strengthening regulatory oversight. Strategies such as rotational editorial leadership, transparent peer review policies, structured regulatory interventions, and cross-institutional collaborations are recommended to balance institutional autonomy with international publishing standards.

The implementation of these measures has the potential to enhance the credibility, inclusivity, and global impact of UJs while preserving their role in supporting local and disciplinary research communities.

Recognizing the constraints faced by many UJs, we propose flexible and scalable solutions to enhance editorial integrity while considering the operational realities of university-based publishing. Effectively addressing editorial endogamy requires coordinated action among universities, journal editors, and policymakers.

URL : s10805-025-09Prevention of Endogamy in the Editorial Boards of University Journals687-z

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09687-z

Catégories
EN

Preprint policies across journals and publishers in ecology and evolutionary biology

Authors : Marija Purgar, Edward R. Ivimey-Cook, Antica Culina, Joshua D. Wallach

Preprints have the potential to accelerate knowledge dissemination and promote transparency in ecology and evolutionary biology. However, concerns about journal policies regarding prior publication may discourage researchers from preprinting their manuscripts.

Therefore, we identified 230 eligible ecology and evolutionary biology journals, published by 69 different publishers, and assessed both their journal- and publisher-level preprint policies. At the journal level, 119 (51.7%) of the 230 journals included preprint policies in their author guidelines—either through journal-specific policies (109, 47.4%) or by directly referencing their publisher’s preprint policies (10, 4.3%).

Overall, 116 (97.5%) of these journals were supportive of considering preprints for publication. At the publisher level, 26 (37.7%) of the 69 publishers had explicit preprint policies, all of which supported considering preprints for publication. There were 38 (16.5%) journals without journal- or publisher-level preprint policies.

While most journals and publishers were supportive of considering preprints for publication, instructions for authors, such as acceptable locations for posting preprints, timing of preprint posting relative to manuscript submission and requirements to link preprints to final published articles, were lacking.

These findings highlight opportunities for ecology and evolutionary biology journals, along with their publishers, to clarify and refine their preprint policies and instructions for authors.

URL : Preprint policies across journals and publishers in ecology and evolutionary biology

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2025.0524