Étiquette : Scholarly Publishing

Catégories
EN

The time for action is now: Equity and sustainability for diamond publishing in Aotearoa New Zealand

Authors : Luqman Hayes, Craig Murdoch

Diamond open access journals make a significant contribution to scholarship globally while enduring a precarious existence due to a lack of funding. The purpose of this study was to identify the necessary characteristics of a shared service that would deliver improved sustainability for diamond journals in Aotearoa New Zealand.

We conducted semi-structured interviews with several of the editors of journals hosted by Tuwhera, Auckland University of Technology’s diamond hosting service. We sought to understand their experiences, both positive and negative, via thematic analysis of the interview transcripts. These themes indicate that our diamond journal editors face significant burdens due to lack of funding, which threaten the unique contribution they make as journals of and from Aotearoa.

We conclude that a shared open infrastructure is the most appropriate way to ensure the sustainability of diamond journals in Aotearoa, but that it must be accompanied by shared services that address the administrative and journal production load currently experienced by editors.

We propose that such an endeavor should be funded by shifting a small percentage of existing library subscription expenditure from profit-making publishers to diamond journals.

URL : The time for action is now: Equity and sustainability for diamond publishing in Aotearoa New Zealand

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18311

Catégories
EN

From Fees to Free: Comparing APC-Based and Diamond Open Access Journals in Engineering

Authors : Luís Eduardo Pilatti, Luiz Alberto Pilatti, Gustavo Dambiski Gomes de Carvalho, Luis Mauricio Martins de Resende

This study analyzes the impact of different Open Access (OA) publication models in engineering, comparing journals that charge Article Processing Charges (APCs) with those operating under the Diamond OA model.

A total of 757 engineering OA journals, comprising 504 APC-based and 253 Diamond OA journals, were examined using bibliometric data from 2020 to 2023. The analysis focused on four key metrics: CiteScore, total citations, number of published articles, and the percentage of cited articles. The results indicate that APC-based journals dominate the upper quartiles (Q1 and Q2) regarding absolute citation counts, primarily driven by high-volume mega-journals such as IEEE Access.

However, Diamond OA journals exhibit a higher proportion of cited articles (88.8% compared to 83.4% in APC-based journals) within the top 10% category. Despite their benefits in providing cost-free dissemination, Diamond OA journals account for only 8.4% of the 3012 active engineering journals indexed in Scopus, highlighting sustainability and visibility challenges.

The findings suggest that, while APC-based journals achieve higher absolute citation counts, editorial reputation and visibility strategies significantly influence citation performance.

This study contributes to the ongoing discussion on the financial sustainability and equity of OA publishing in engineering.

URL : From Fees to Free: Comparing APC-Based and Diamond Open Access Journals in Engineering

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13020016

Catégories
EN

Tailoring Scientific Knowledge: How Generative AI Personalizes Academic Reading Experiences

Author : Anna Małgorzata Kamińska

The scientific literature is expanding at an unprecedented pace, making it increasingly difficult for researchers, students, and professionals to extract relevant insights efficiently.

Traditional academic publishing offers static, one-size-fits-all content that does not cater to the diverse backgrounds, expertise levels, and interests of readers. This paper explores how generative AI can dynamically personalize scholarly content by tailoring summaries and key takeaways to individual user profiles.

Nine scientific articles from a single journal issue were used to create the dataset, and prompt engineering was applied to generate tailored insights for exemplary personas: a digital humanities and open science researcher, and a mining and raw materials industry specialist. The effectiveness of AI-generated content modifications in enhancing readability, comprehension, and relevance was evaluated.

The results indicate that generative AI can successfully emphasize different aspects of an article, making it more accessible and engaging to specific audiences. However, challenges such as content oversimplification, potential biases, and ethical considerations remain.

The implications of AI-powered personalization in scholarly communication are discussed, and future research directions are proposed to refine and optimize AI-driven adaptive reading experiences.

URL : Tailoring Scientific Knowledge: How Generative AI Personalizes Academic Reading Experiences

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13020018

Catégories
EN

Open and impactful academic publishing

Authors : Rosaria Ciriminna, Giovanna Li Petri, Giuseppe Angellotti, Rafael Luque, Mario Pagliaro

Introduction

The advantages of self-archiving research articles on institutional repositories or personal academic websites are numerous and relevant for society and individual researchers. Yet, self-archiving has been adopted by a small minority of active scholars.

Methods

Aiming to further inform educational work on open and impactful academic publishing in the digital era, we posed selected questions to Stevan Harnad 30 years after his « subversive proposal » to maximize research impact by self-archiving scholarly articles in university-hosted or disciplinary online repositories to make published articles openly available.

Results and discussion

Self-archiving is even more needed today than it was when Professor Harnad called for it when the World Wide Web was in its infancy; OA academic publishing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for impactful research; self-archiving on a personal academic website is often more effective than in institutional repositories.

URL : Open and impactful academic publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1544965

Catégories
EN

Open access, open infrastructures, and their funding: Learning from histories to more effectively enhance diamond OA ecologies for books

Authors  : Kira Hopkins, Kevin Sanders

The decade since the “Bottlenecks in the Open Access System” special issue of JLSC in 2014 has been an expansive one for open access (OA) and OA books in particular. The creation of a scholarly publishing ecosystem that enables works to be freely accessible for readers has been successful in many ways.

However, the underlying politics and economics of OA scholarly publishing often remain opaque or under-interrogated (Lawson et al., 2015). The problems with journal OA funding, specifically regarding inequality of access to publishing, discussed by Bonaccorso et al. (2014) in their contribution to that issue, have also increased and become entrenched as we discuss below.

This entrenchment has been largely via the growth and consolidation of gold OA, “transformative” agreements, and read-and-publish journal deals, which have effectively, and unnecessarily, commodified OA publications. We would argue that this is in direct tension with some of the foundations of contemporary OA.

OA was explicitly described from early principles as not a business model and as aiming to reduce financial barriers from authors, libraries, and other groups (Suber, 2024). We would like to note that, while the main focus of this paper is books, we begin with a discussion of journals. This is because we are focusing on the history, development, and critiques of OA fundings in the intervening ten years following the “Bottlenecks” special issue.

OA journal publishing has been at the forefront of discussions of OA funding, and it has dominated the last decade, and more, of this discussion; it would therefore be remiss of us not to discuss this history, the resulting current landscape of inequity, and the potential ramifications if this were to be transferred to OA books, a more nascent field in general.

URL : Open access, open infrastructures, and their funding: Learning from histories to more effectively enhance diamond OA ecologies for books

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18284

 

Catégories
EN

Knowledge Production and Intellectual Property: A Perspective on Scientific Publications in the Capitalist System

Author : Sofia Guilhem Basilio

The digital revolution has reshaped the production, dissemination, and accessibility of scientific knowledge. However, capitalist logic persists, commodifying intellectual labour and concentrating market power within a few mega-publishers.

This article critically examines scientific publishing through the lens of Marx’s theory of value, focusing on intellectual property rent as a mechanism of capital accumulation.

By highlighting the Brazilian higher education system – where public resources are redirected to private publishers via paywalls and Article Processing Charges (APCs) – the paper exposes the contradictions of contemporary academic publishing.

It critiques the dual exploitation of researchers as producers and consumers of knowledge and argues for alternative, equitable models like Open Access. Situating the analysis within global and local contexts, the article advocates for the democratisation of scientific knowledge as a resistance to commodification and privatisation.

URL : Knowledge Production and Intellectual Property: A Perspective on Scientific Publications in the Capitalist System

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v23i1.1520

Catégories
EN

Improving peer review of systematic reviews and related review types by involving librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers: a randomised controlled trial

Authors : Melissa L Rethlefsen, Sara Schroter, Lex M Bouter, Jamie J Kirkham,  David Moher, Ana Patricia Ayala, David Blanco, Tara J Brigham, Holly K Grossetta Nardini,  Shona Kirtley, Kate Nyhan, Whitney Townsend, Maurice Zeegers

Objective

To evaluate the impact of adding librarians and information specialists (LIS) as methodological peer reviewers to the formal journal peer review process on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches in the medical literature.

Design

Pragmatic two-group parallel randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Three biomedical journals.

Participants

Systematic reviews and related evidence synthesis manuscripts submitted to The BMJ, BMJ Open and BMJ Medicine and sent out for peer review from 3 January 2023 to 1 September 2023. Randomisation (allocation ratio, 1:1) was stratified by journal and used permuted blocks (block size=4). Of 2670 manuscripts sent to peer review during study enrollment, 400 met inclusion criteria and were randomised (62 The BMJ, 334 BMJ Open, 4 BMJ Medicine). 76 manuscripts were revised and resubmitted in the intervention group and 90 in the control group by 2 January 2024.

Interventions

All manuscripts followed usual journal practice for peer review, but those in the intervention group had an additional (LIS) peer reviewer invited.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcomes are the differences in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups in the quality of reporting and risk of bias. Quality of reporting was measured using four prespecified PRISMA-S items. Risk of bias was measured using ROBIS Domain 2. Assessments were done in duplicate and assessors were blinded to group allocation. Secondary outcomes included differences between groups for each individual PRISMA-S and ROBIS Domain 2 item. The difference in the proportion of manuscripts rejected as the first decision post-peer review between the intervention and control groups was an additional outcome.

Results

Differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches (4.4% difference, 95% CI: −2.0% to 10.7%) and risk of bias in searches (0.5% difference, 95% CI: −13.7% to 14.6%) showed no statistically significant differences between groups. By 4 months post-study, 98 intervention and 70 control group manuscripts had been rejected after peer review (13.8% difference, 95% CI: 3.9% to 23.8%).

Conclusions

Inviting LIS peer reviewers did not impact adequate reporting or risk of bias of searches in first revision manuscripts of biomedical systematic reviews and related review types, though LIS peer reviewers may have contributed to a higher rate of rejection after peer review.

URL : Improving peer review of systematic reviews and related review types by involving librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers: a randomised controlled trial

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113527