Étiquette : scientific communication

Catégories
EN

Publish-Review-Curate Modelling for Data Paper and Dataset: A Collaborative Approach

Authors : Youngim Jung, Sungsoo Robert Ahn

Research datasets—capturing natural, societal, or artificial phenomena—are critical in generating new scientific insights, validating research models, and supporting data-intensive discovery. Data papers that describe and contextualise these datasets aim to ensure their findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR) while providing academic credit to data creators.

However, the peer review of data papers and associated datasets presents considerable challenges, requiring reviewers to assess both the syntactic and semantic integrity of the data, metadata quality, and domain-specific scientific relevance. Furthermore, the coordination between journal editors, reviewers, and curators demands substantial effort, often leading to publication delays in the conventional review and then publishing framework.

This study proposes a novel Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model tailored to the synchronised publication and review of data papers and their underlying datasets. Building on preprint and open science practices, the model defines a collaborative, multi-stakeholder workflow involving authors, peer reviewers, data experts, and journal editors.

The PRC model integrates open feedback, transparent peer review, and structured curation to improve research data’s quality, discoverability, and impact. By articulating conceptual and operational workflows, this study contributes a practical framework for modernising data publishing infrastructures and supporting the co-evaluation of narrative and data artefacts.

URL : Publish-Review-Curate Modelling for Data Paper and Dataset: A Collaborative Approach

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2024

Catégories
FR

TheConversation.com : relais de l’expertise des universitaires et chercheurs au sein de l’espace médiatique

Auteur : Edern Appéré

La crise sanitaire liée au covid-19 a révélé les rapports parfois difficiles entre science et médias. De nombreuses critiques ont été adressées aux médias sur leur traitement de la maladie, notamment sur le manque de connaissances scientifiques des journalistes, leurs difficultés à comprendre et expliquer la science en train de se faire, les choix discutables d’experts sollicités. L’importance pour le grand public de disposer d’informations fiables, vérifiées, provenant de personnes dont c’est le domaine d’expertise, a été plus que jamais mise en lumière.

Fondé en 2011 en Australie, le média TheConversation.com a pour ambition de renouveler la manière dont scientifiques et journalistes travaillent ensemble. Ce média se présente sous la forme d’un site web d’information généraliste qui aborde tous les sujets qui font l’actualité. La principale spécificité de son modèle éditorial est que les articles sont tous rédigés par des chercheurs, assistés de journalistes, dans une démarche de vulgarisation scientifique. Ce modèle original est résumé par la devise « L’expertise universitaire, l’exigence journalistique ».

Ce mémoire, concentré sur l’édition française de The Conversation cherche à répondre aux questions, légitimes, que ce média atypique ne manque de susciter : le contrat de lecture énoncé est-il respecté ? TheConversation.com atteint-il sa promesse de donner la parole aux chercheurs pour informer et éclairer le débat public ?

URL : https://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-04965431v1

Catégories
EN

Greenwashing at Elsevier: A political ecology of corporate publishing

Authors : Angus Lyall, Mark Ortiz, Emily Billo

The largest science publishing corporations, including Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Springer, and Sage, are key partners for the oil, gas, and coal industries insofar as they distribute scientific research and data that facilitate fossil fuel exploration, production, and distribution.

Critical researchers seldom trace fossil fuels and, in turn, the climate crisis to the publishing corporations that they generally rely upon to distribute their own research. We argue that corporate publishers produce the invisibility of their connections to fossil fuels through changing practices of greenwashing both in the public sphere and within firms.

We detail marketing and management practices in the case of the largest science publisher in the world: Elsevier. On the one hand, we examine evolving forms of green marketing. On the other hand, building on recent calls for political ecologies of labor, we highlight the proliferation of ‘greenwashing rituals’ within the firm – i.e., performative, management-sponsored dialogues and actions regarding climate change.

We suggest that researchers continue to expand frameworks for critiquing the fossil fuel industry to include auxiliary industries such as corporate publishing.

URL : Greenwashing at Elsevier: A political ecology of corporate publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.6276

Catégories
EN

Evaluation of Faculty Knowledge of Predatory Journals in the United States: A Cross-Institutional Survey

Authors : Nicole R. Webber, Stephanie Wiegand, Jason A. Cohen, John M. Reynolds, Lisa Ancelet, Arlene V. Salazar

Predatory journals are a known hazard in modern academic research publishing, with research and anecdotal accounts indicating that they exploit inexperienced researchers. Most literature on the topic centres on specific disciplines and/or countries deemed ‘more vulnerable’ to publishing scams.

At the time of publication, no studies have examined a full range of disciplines at institutions across the United States. Our research collected responses from 1098 faculty at 17 US doctoral universities using a multi-disciplinary survey to assess self-reported knowledge and awareness of predatory publishing.

In this analysis, we investigated participants’ reported knowledge levels of predatory journals in relation to four aspects: academic discipline, years employed in academic research, number of articles published, and early career researcher status.

We conclude that the relationship between experience and knowledge of predatory publishing depends on the definition of experience employed, and that the number of recent articles published by a faculty member is a more reliable indicator of knowledge about predatory publishing than the other measures of experience investigated.

URL : Evaluation of Faculty Knowledge of Predatory Journals in the United States: A Cross-Institutional Survey

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2020

 

Catégories
EN

Does ChatGPT Ignore Article Retractions and Other Reliability Concerns?

Authors : Mike Thelwall, Marianna Lehtisaari, Irini Katsirea, Kim Holmberg, Er-Te Zheng

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT seem to be increasingly used for information seeking and analysis, including to support academic literature reviews. To test whether the results might sometimes include retracted research, we identified 217 retracted or otherwise concerning academic studies with high altmetric scores and asked ChatGPT 4o-mini to evaluate their quality 30 times each.

Surprisingly, none of its 6510 reports mentioned that the articles were retracted or had relevant errors, and it gave 190 relatively high scores (world leading, internationally excellent, or close). The 27 articles with the lowest scores were mostly accused of being weak, although the topic (but not the article) was described as controversial in five cases (e.g., about hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19).

In a follow-up investigation, 61 claims were extracted from retracted articles from the set, and ChatGPT 4o-mini was asked 10 times whether each was true. It gave a definitive yes or a positive response two-thirds of the time, including for at least one statement that had been shown to be false over a decade ago.

The results therefore emphasise, from an academic knowledge perspective, the importance of verifying information from LLMs when using them for information seeking or analysis.

URL : Does ChatGPT Ignore Article Retractions and Other Reliability Concerns?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2018

Catégories
EN

How do women and men differ in research collaborations based on authorship positions? The Spanish case

Authors : Fernanda Morillo, Manuel Escabias, Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez

This study examines gender disparities in authorship and collaboration within the Spanish scientific workforce, focusing on international and industry co-authored publications. Drawing on a comprehensive dataset of over 165,000 publications and more than 170,000 identified authors affiliated with Spanish institutions, the analysis explores how gender interacts with authorship position, research field, career stage, and team size.

The results reveal a consistent under-representation of women in both types of collaboration, particularly in key authorship roles (first, last, and corresponding author). While women are more active at early career stages, their visibility in leadership roles tends to diminish over time, especially as the number of co-authors increases. Field-specific patterns show that even in highly feminized disciplines, such as Biomedical & Health Sciences, women are less likely to appear in prominent authorship positions.

These findings raise important concerns about current research assessment practices that rely heavily on byline position as a proxy for contribution or leadership. The study contributes to ongoing discussions on responsible metrics and proposes policy recommendations to promote more equitable evaluation systems that reflect the collaborative and diverse nature of research careers.

URL : How do women and men differ in research collaborations based on authorship positions? The Spanish case

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1631931

Catégories
EN

Scholarly Publications: Criteria, Types, and Recognition From the Researchers’ Perspective

Authors : Christian Kaier, Lisa Schilhan, Lisa Schilhan, Hilmar Brohmer

Based on a survey, this study investigates the perceptions of researchers in Austria concerning scholarly publications, exploring criteria, types, and emerging types of publication and their future recognition. The findings reveal that researchers value a diverse set of criteria, with content-related factors prioritised over formal ones. While traditional publication types remain dominant, novel forms, such as data publications and replication studies, are gaining recognition.

Researchers (n = 616) express a desire for broader recognition of diverse types of work, particularly data publications, teaching materials, and software or code. The findings also exhibit the predominantly research-to-research focus of scholarly communication, with limited emphasis on science-to-public engagement. An analysis of career stages shows that pre-doctoral and post-doctoral researchers tend to be more open-minded than professors regarding the future recognition of some novel types of publication.

There are evident differences between disciplines, highlighting the need for a nuanced, subject-specific approach to evaluation and documentation. Overall, the survey results call for greater consideration of novel publication types in research assessment and documentation. Accordingly, libraries should enhance their research support services to assist in the publication, documentation, and archiving of additional types of publication.

URL : Scholarly Publications: Criteria, Types, and Recognition From the Researchers’ Perspective

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2019