Étiquette : Scholarly Publishing

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

Catégories
EN

Motivations and barriers to publishing open access book chapters and monographs: An institutional perspective

Authors : Wm. Joseph Thomas, Allison Kaefring, Jeanne K. Hoover

Introduction

Recent years have seen an increase in publishers exploring open access for monographs and book chapters. Programs like the Direct to Open from MIT Press and JSTOR’s Path to Open have provided avenues for libraries and authors to support open access monographs generally, but not campus authors specifically. On our campus, we have seen an increase in requests for and questions about publishing monographs and book chapters open access.

Description of Program

We offer several options for support for open access article publishing, including transformational agreements, institutional memberships, and an open access fund, but have limited resources and strategies for supporting book and chapter authors to make their publications open access.

To gauge our authors’ awareness and interest, we surveyed faculty who recently published a book or chapter about their publishing experiences with a focus on open access publishing. In addition to our survey, we conducted interviews with faculty to gain a better understanding of open access publishing from their perspective as recent authors.

Next Steps

In response to this research, the library has explored new methods of supporting open monograph publishing and plans to develop open education resources and webinars about the open monograph publishing process.

URL : Motivations and barriers to publishing open access book chapters and monographs: An institutional perspective

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31274/jlsc.18280

 

Catégories
EN

Academic Quality or Commercial Concern? The Role of APCs in Open-Access Communication Studies Journals

Author : Burak Ili

Despite the positive effects of the open access (OA) movement on academic publishing, commercial publishers’ profit-driven policies continue to prevail, making the publishing process increasingly difficult for many researchers, particularly those from developing countries. T

his study critically examines open-access Q1 and Q2 journals listed in the Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) within the field of Media and Communication Studies.

Despite the OA movement’s goal of increasing access to information, the capitalist academic publishing model transforms knowledge production into a commercial activity through article processing charges (APCs). The research reveals that high APCs demanded by high-impact journals represent a significant barrier, especially for researchers with limited financial and institutional support.

This situation underscores the urgent need for institutional reform in the structure of academic publishing, particularly within the field of Media and Communication Studies.

The proposed reforms should focus on critical areas such as increased support for OA models, freeing journals and editorial boards from Western monopolies, fairly compensating the labour of reviewers and editors, and offering greater language support.

Steps taken in this direction will contribute to the creation of a more transparent, fair, and inclusive structure for academic production and sharing processes.

URL : Academic Quality or Commercial Concern? The Role of APCs in Open-Access Communication Studies Journals

DOI : https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v23i1.1547