Étiquette : scientific communication

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
EN

The role of discussion sections in research articles: the case of health information-seeking studies

Author : Reijo Savolainen

Introduction. Drawing on the ideas of genre analysis, this article elaborates the role of discussion sections as sites where researchers reflect their contributions to a particular field of study.

Method. A sample of 100 discussions sections of research articles examining health information seeking was scrutinized by means of descriptive quantitative analysis. To obtain a quantitative overview, the percentage distribution of the codes assigned to the 14 constituents of discussion sections was calculated. The main emphasis was laid on qualitative content analysis.

Analysis. The qualitative analysis focused on the content of diverse constituents of discussion sections, for example, interpreting individual research results and reflecting the theoretical contributions of the study. More specifically, the analysis focused on the variation in the constituents´ content. To achieve this, similarities and differences were identified in the ways in which the authors depicted such content per constituent, for example, while summarizing the key findings and reflecting the empirical contribution.

Results. The findings indicate that in discussion sections of research articles on health information-seeking studies, researchers direct their main attention to the interpretation of individual (key) findings. While reflecting their contributions to health-information studies, they also compare their findings in order to identify similarities and differences with prior studies. Moreover, they are active to propose topics for future research. In contrast, researchers in the above domain quite seldom employ analytically demanding strategies by explaining the similarities and differences or reflect the theoretical and methodological implications of their study.

Conclusion. Researchers prefer a conservative approach by seeking confirmatory support for their findings, rather than challenging them by presenting contrasting evidence.

URL : The role of discussion sections in research articles: the case of health information-seeking studies

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47989/ir30341812

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

Enjeux de légitimité dans la médiation scientifique : approche par les usages du livre

Authors : Émilie Kohlmann, Aude Inaudi, Amélie Coulbaut-Lazzarini

Cet article porte sur le statut du livre à la fois dans sa dimension symbolique et fonctionnelle afin d’interroger les évolutions de la médiation scientifique et les tensions entre différentes représentations de la science et du public, dans un univers où se croise une grande diversité d’acteurs.

L’hypothèse est que pour répondre à leur objectif de reconnaissance, les acteurs de la médiation scientifique ont recours à différents éléments symboliques, dont le livre en tant que représentant d’une connaissance scientifique fiable et stabilisée. Objet-frontière, le livre permet d’articuler différents métiers et compétences de la médiation scientifique. Indirectement, il sert à asseoir la légitimité des discours et des acteurs, ainsi qu’à ouvrir sur des dispositifs dans lesquels la place du public est reconsidérée.

URL : https://lesenjeux.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/2025/dossier/06-enjeux-de-legitimite-dans-la-mediation-scientifique-approche-par-les-usages-du-livre/

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

Catégories
EN

Analyzing the citation impact of predatory journals in the health sciences

Authors : Erin Watson, AHI, Li Zhang

Objective

Predatory journal articles do not undergo rigorous peer review and so their quality is potentially lower. Citing them disseminates the unreliable data they may contain and may undermine the integrity of science. Using citation analysis techniques, this study investigates the influence of predatory journals in the health sciences.

Methods

The twenty-six journals in the “Medical Sciences” category of a known predatory publisher were selected. The number of articles published by these journals was recorded based on the information from their websites. The “Cited References” search function in Web of Science was used to retrieve citation data for these journals.

Results

Of the 3,671 articles published in these predatory journals, 1,151 (31.4%) were cited at least once by 3,613 articles indexed in Web of Science. The number of articles that cited articles published in predatory journals increased significantly from 64 in 2014 to 665 in 2022, an increase of 10-fold in nine years. The citing articles were published by researchers from all over the world (from high-, middle-, and lower-income countries) and in the journals of traditional and open access publishers. Forty-three percent (1,560/3,613) of the citing articles were supported by research funds.

Conclusions

The content from articles published in predatory journals has infiltrated reputable health sciences journals to a substantial extent. It is crucial to develop strategies to prevent citing such articles.

URL : Analyzing the citation impact of predatory journals in the health sciences

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2025.2024