Étiquette : scientific communication

Catégories
EN

Back to the roots: reimagining scientific evaluation of research without peer review

Author : Malik Sallam

The peer review system, once a noble aspiration, now lags behind the accelerating demands of modern science.

This opinion piece calls for a decisive departure from that peer review system and advocates for a return to a more accountable, editorially driven model of scholarly evaluation. Scientific editors – already vested with decision‑making authority – should no longer outsource their judgement to external referees. Instead, they must reclaim their rightful role as the primary arbiters of scientific merit.

Too often, editorial judgement is diluted by ritualized consultation, where peer review delays innovation, rewards consensus and obscures responsibility.

I argue for a future in which academic editors decide independently, sign their decisions and are recognized – publicly and professionally – for the intellectual stewardship they provide. By linking editorial work to scientific databases such as Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, we can incentivize rigour, transparency and accountability.

This model would not erode scientific integrity but elevate it, replacing bureaucracy with responsibility. It is time to shed the cloak of anonymity and return authority – and credit – to those best positioned to shape the scientific record; the academic editors themselves.

URL : Back to the roots: reimagining scientific evaluation of research without peer review

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.714

Catégories
EN

Data as a new research publication type: What could be the role of research libraries as service providers?

Authors : Mari Elisa Kuusniem, Susanna Nykyri

This article examines the evolving role of research libraries in supporting the recognition of datasets as legitimate academic outputs through data publishing. Although the academic community increasingly acknowledges the value of treating research data as standalone contributions, there remains a lack of comprehensive frameworks and services to support this shift. Research libraries are well-positioned to lead in data curation and publication by collaborating with researchers, institutions, and other stakeholders.

Using a qualitative, multi-method approach—including a literature review, an exploratory survey of university libraries in the Nordic and Baltic countries, and professional experience—we investigate current practices, challenges, and institutional perspectives on data publishing. Our findings highlight inconsistent terminology in data policies and evolving services for data appraisal and visibility. We differentiate data publishing from general data sharing, emphasizing critical aspects such as data citability, quality control, and ethical reuse.

The article discusses various publishing pathways—such as data journals, repositories, and article supplements—and their respective implications. We identify key service gaps in libraries, particularly in data evaluation and discoverability, and propose strategies for libraries to promote data journals and domain-specific repositories. Ultimately, we advocate for libraries to expand their role by developing integrated services for data appraisal, curation, and preservation, and by strengthening staff competencies in data management. Such efforts are essential for increasing the visibility, credibility, and scholarly impact of research data.

This paper is a continuation to a presentation provided in Liber Conference 2022. The presentation paper was acknowledged with the Innovation Award.

URL : Data as a new research publication type: What could be the role of research libraries as service providers?

DOI : https://doi.org/10.53377/lq.19415

Catégories
EN

Peer Review at the Crossroads

Author : Dmitry Kochetkov

Peer review has long been regarded as a cornerstone of scholarly communication, ensuring high quality and credibility of published research. Although academic journals trace their origins back three centuries, the procedures for evaluating submissions, particularly peer review, have undergone continuous evolution.

Peer review’s formal institutionalisation in the mid-20th century represents a significant, yet natural, phase in this ongoing transformation of scholarly communication. By the early 21st century, there emerged an opinion that the conventional model of peer review faces systematic challenges, including inefficiency, bias and institutional inertia.

The study aims to synthesise the evolution, practices and outcomes of both conventional and innovative peer review models in scholarly publishing. Through a mixed-methods approach combining interpretative literature review and process modelling (Business Process Model and Notation–BPMN), it identifies four frameworks: pre-publication peer review, registered reports, modular publishing and the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model.

While the PRC model, which integrates preprints with post-publication review, demonstrates advantages in transparency and accessibility, no single approach emerges as universally ideal. The choice of model depends on disciplinary context, resource availability and institutional priorities.

The analysis underscores the need for adaptable platforms that enable hybrid workflows, balancing rigour with inclusivity. Future research must address empirical gaps in evaluating these innovations, particularly their long-term impact on equity and epistemic norms.

URL : Peer Review at the Crossroads

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2046

Catégories
EN

Open access journals lack image accessibility guidelines

Authors : Kaitlin Stack Whitney, Julia Perrone, Christie A. Bahlai

In recent decades, there has been a move to “open” science and research. One component of open access is “accessibility,” often used to mean that data and other products are free to use by others. However, accessibility also refers to considering and meeting the needs of people with disabilities.

Our objective was to evaluate how open access journals incorporate disability accessibility as part of publishing. Using a random sample of 300 English-language journals and image accessibility as a lens, we assessed author guidelines. Of 289 journals with guidelines, 38 (13%) included color choice, six (∼2%) included contrast ratios, and none included alternative text.

We also assessed the open access statements for the same 300 journals to understand how they conceive of openness and accessibility. Of the 298 journals with open access statements, 228 (∼77%) included the words access or accessibility. Yet none included disability or disabled and only two journals (<1%) mentioned inclusive or inclusion.

Our findings indicate that the open access journals sampled are not considering disability accessibility in their submission guidelines or open access frameworks. Incorporating disability accessibility into open scholarship considerations is critical to bridge, and not exacerbate, information inequalities for people with disabilities.

URL : Open access journals lack image accessibility guidelines

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00338

Catégories
EN

Scrolling through science: how accurate is science content on TikTok

Authors : Ricardo Morais, Clara Eloïse Fernandes

TikTok has become a popular platform for science communication, particularly among younger audiences, allowing creators to reach broader audiences. However, concerns about the accuracy of science content shared on the platform have emerged, prompting this study to investigate the reliability of informal science communication by popular creators. Informal science communication is the casual sharing of scientific information on platforms like TikTok.

The main objective is to assess how well this content adheres to established scientific principles and avoids misinformation. By analysing videos from creators with significant followings, we will evaluate their adherence to scientific accuracy and identify factors that influence it, such as the creators’ backgrounds and platform algorithms.

The findings will highlight trends in the accuracy of content, with some creators producing reliable information while others risk spreading misinformation.

Ultimately, the research will provide recommendations for enhancing the accuracy of science content on TikTok, promoting critical thinking among viewers, and advancing informed science communication on social media.

URL : Scrolling through science: how accurate is science content on TikTok

DOI : https://doi.org/10.22323/165520251230163519

Catégories
EN

Can ChatGPT write better scientific titles? A comparative evaluation of human-written and AI-generated titles

Authors : Paul Sebo, Bing Nie, Ting Wang

Background

Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are increasingly used in scientific writing, yet little is known about how AI-generated scientific titles are perceived by researchers in terms of quality.

Objective

To compare the perceived alignment with the abstract content (as a surrogate for perceived accuracy), appeal, and overall preference for AI-generated versus human-written scientific titles.

Methods

We conducted a blinded comparative study with 21 researchers from diverse academic backgrounds. A random sample of 50 original titles was selected from 10 high-impact general internal medicine journals. For each title, an alternative version was generated using GPT-4.0. Each rater evaluated 50 pairs of titles, each pair consisting of one original and one AI-generated version, without knowing the source of the titles or the purpose of the study.

For each pair, raters independently assessed both titles on perceived alignment with the abstract content and appeal, and indicated their overall preference. We analyzed alignment and appeal using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and mixed-effects ordinal logistic regressions, preferences using McNemar’s test and mixed-effects logistic regression, and inter-rater agreement with Gwet’s AC.
Results

AI-generated titles received significantly higher ratings for both perceived alignment with the abstract content (mean 7.9 vs. 6.7, p-value <0.001) and appeal (mean 7.1 vs. 6.7, p-value <0.001) than human-written titles. The odds of preferring an AI-generated title were 1.7 times higher (p-value =0.001), with 61.8% of 1,049 paired judgments favoring the AI version. Inter-rater agreement was moderate to substantial (Gwet’s AC: 0.54–0.70).

Conclusions

AI-generated titles were rated more favorably than human-written titles within the context of this study in terms of perceived alignment with the abstract content, appeal, and preference, suggesting that LLMs may enhance the effectiveness of scientific communication. These findings support the responsible integration of AI tools in research.

URL : Can ChatGPT write better scientific titles? A comparative evaluation of human-written and AI-generated titles

DOI : https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.173647.2

Catégories
EN

Artificial intelligence in academic practices and policy discourses across ‘Big 5’ publishers

Authors :  Gergely Ferenc Lendvai, Aczél Petra

The present study investigates how the five largest academic publishers (Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE) are responding to the epistemic and procedural challenges posed by generative AI through formal policy frameworks.

Situated within ongoing debates about the boundaries of authorship and the governance of AI-generated content, our research aims to critically assess the discursive and regulatory contours of publishers’ authorship guidelines (PGs).

We employed a multi-method design that combines qualitative coding, semantic network analysis, and comparative matrix visualization to examine the official policy texts collected from each publisher’s website. Findings reveal a foundational consensus across all five publishers in prohibiting AI systems from being credited as authors and in mandating disclosure of AI usage.

However, beyond this shared baseline, marked divergences emerge in the scope, specificity, and normative framing of AI policies. Co-occurrence and semantic analyses underline the centrality of ‘authorship’, ‘ethics’, and ‘accountability’ in AI discourse. Structural similarity measures further reveal alignment among Wiley, Elsevier, and Taylor & Francis, with Springer as a clear outlier.

Our results point to an unsettled regulatory landscape where policies serve not only as instruments of governance but also as performative assertions of institutional identity and legitimacy.

Consequently, the fragmented field of PG highlights the need for harmonized, inclusive, and enforceable frameworks that recognize both the potential and risks of AI in scholarly communication.

URL : Artificial intelligence in academic practices and policy discourses across ‘Big 5’ publishers

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvag004