Étiquette : Scholarly Publishing

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

Catégories
FR

Légitimations et subversions de l’Open : pour une analyse de l’openwashing dans la publication scientifique

Auteurs/Authors : Guillaume Silhol, Hans Dillaerts, Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri

Ce texte propose un état de l’art inédit sur la notion d’openwashing dans l’espace des publications scientifiques. En s’appuyant sur les phénomènes de washing, il aborde une variété de formes de détournement des principes de l’ouverture scientifique.

À partir d’une analyse critique d’une littérature interdisciplinaire, le concept sténographique élaboré est appliqué aux plateformes numériques pour analyser de la déviance à bas bruit et à faible concernement.

L’article apporte une meilleure compréhension de la genèse de l’openwashing à la fois comme concept critique et vecteur de discours de dénonciation de la déviance et de ses évolutions. Enfin, il permet de forger une définition ancrée dans le champ de la communication scientifique ouverte, autant que de légitimer son usage pour appréhender les mécanismes complexes de ses transformations.

HAL : https://hal.science/hal-05363533v1

Catégories
FR

Saisir l’objet mouvant de la prédation dans la communication scientifique

Auteur : Innocent Azilan

Cet article examine la prédation dans la communication scientifique comme un phénomène complexe et mouvant qui dépasse la simple dichotomie entre revues « légitime » et « prédatrices ». Je propose une analyse nuancée qui identifie trois formes principales de prédation : par opportunisme (éditeurs frauduleux exploitant le modèle des frais de publication), par immaturité (revues périphériques aux capacités éditoriales limitées), et par avidité (dérives des grands éditeurs commerciaux sous pression de croissance). Je montre que la prédation n’est pas cantonnée aux marges du système scientifique mais touche également des acteurs établis.

HAL : https://hal.science/hal-05344926v1