Learned Publishing最新文献

This study explores the experiences and perspectives of journal editors in Australia, focusing on their pathways into editorship, required skills, challenges and issues relating to recognition, workload and succession planning. Based on in-depth qualitative interviews with 27 editors across a range of disciplines and publishing models, we analyse the critical yet often undervalued role of editors in the scholarly publishing landscape. While editors acknowledged the professional benefits of the role, they also highlighted substantial challenges, including struggles with workload, limited institutional support or recognition and the continued reliance on volunteer labour. The findings reveal tensions arising from the increasing commercialisation of academic publishing, research metrics and the changing demands of academic work. Through a focus on individual experiences, this study contributes new insights into the realities of journal editorship and its implications for academic careers, university workload management and the sustainability of Australian journal publishing.

Despite the dominance of English-language journals in international databases, the global scholarly publishing ecosystem is far more multilingual. This study presents the first comprehensive analysis of Iran's journal publishing landscape, uncovering a complex ecosystem of 3250 active and 639 discontinued journals published in English, Persian and Arabic. Drawing on multiple national databases and journal websites, we examine language, subject area, ownership, publishing platforms, open access models and indexation status. Our findings reveal distinct patterns: Persian-language journals dominate in social sciences and humanities, while English-language journals are concentrated in medical and STEM fields. All journals are locally owned and use domestically developed journal platforms with right-to-left language support. The vast majority (99.2%) are open access. Sanctions have limited access to international infrastructure, prompting local innovations such as the Digital Object Recognizer (DOR), a national alternative to DOI. In contrast to mainstream practice, most Iranian journals pay peer reviewers and use a two-part article processing charge (APC): a non-refundable fee at submission to cover peer review and a second payment upon acceptance. This study shows the scale and specificity of scholarly publishing in a non-Western context and challenges the database-centric view of global publishing by foregrounding local responses to structural constraints.

A survey conducted in 2022 amongst members of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan (n = 633) about preprints and open access journals included qualitative data from free-response answers (n = 161). Analysis of the free-form responses suggests that researchers believe that peer review of papers is the foundation for ensuring the credibility of research content. The trust-building mechanism achieved through peer review shapes the research community. For this reason, researchers are extremely cautious about preprints that have not undergone peer review within their own fields. This foundation has fostered a sense of responsibility within the community, and this sense of responsibility, which is being fulfilled by ensuring the quality of research, is a mixture of both a sense of responsibility towards the community itself and a sense of responsibility towards the outside world, namely the relationship between researchers and society. Researchers also appear to view the rise in Article Processing Charges (APCs) as a problem for the entire community, rather than simply an issue for individual researchers. In the field of molecular biology, where collaborative research between universities and companies is common, differences in normative awareness based on position are reflected in the various attitudes towards preprints and open access.

Rapid advances of artificial intelligence (AI) have substantially impacted the field of academic publishing. This study examines AI integration in peer review by analysing policies from 439 high- and 363 middle-impact factor (IF) journals across disciplines. Using grounded theory, we identify patterns in AI policy adoption. Results show 83% of high-IF journals have AI guidelines, with varying stringency across disciplines. Meanwhile, only 75% of middle-IF journals have AI guidelines. Science, technology, and medicine (STM) disciplines exhibit stricter regulations, while humanities and social sciences adopt more lenient approaches. Key ethical concerns focus on confidentiality risks, accountability gaps, and AI's inability to replicate critical human judgement. Publisher policies emphasise transparency, human oversight, and restricted AI usage for auxiliary tasks only, such as grammar checks or reviewer finding. Disciplinary differences highlight the need for tailored guidelines that balance efficiency gains with research integrity. This study proposes collaborative frameworks for responsible AI integration. It focuses on accountability, transparency, and interdisciplinary policy development to address peer review challenges.

This study investigates the operational and strategic challenges faced by Australian journal editors. Interviews with 27 editors reveal a complex publishing ecosystem shaped by tensions around editorial independence, financial viability, and scholarly impact. Operational challenges include securing qualified peer reviewers and attracting quality submissions; the latter is considerably influenced by journal ranking, indexation, and reputation. Many editors seek stronger support from publishers, emphasising a need for shared goals, mutual trust, and editorial independence. Successful relationships with publishers often require editors to be proactive and assertive. Strategic challenges include balancing international recognition and local relevance, which leads some journals to remove ‘Australian’ from their titles and diversify editorial boards to attract global submissions. Publishing models vary, with some journals transitioning to commercial publishers for financial and technical support, while others prioritise independence despite operational challenges. Open Access (OA) remains a contested issue, particularly regarding the role of commercial publishers, though many journals have reached a degree of stability in their OA policies. This study also examines the role of editorial boards, the use of journal management systems, relationships with parent bodies, and the strategies editors adopt to navigate these challenges.

This study analyses the adoption and use of ORCID compared to other researcher profile systems across research domains and job categories at the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC). The sample consists of authors affiliated with CSIC who published at least one publication between 2013 and 2022. The results reveal that the adoption rate of ORCID was higher than that for public Google Scholar profiles. The ORCID profiles show a gender gap, with men registering more profiles and completing more fields. Permanent researchers adopted ORCID to a greater extent and were among those who completed the most sections. Natural Resources and Social Science had the highest profile number, while Humanities displayed the most complete profiles. In addition, a rapid increase in ORCID registrations was observed in the early years following its implementation, followed by a gradual decline, while ORCID profile updates remained consistent over time. We hope our findings could inform researchers and institutional strategies to enhance the use of persistent identifiers, strengthen data completeness, and address the gender gap in ORCID adoption, ultimately supporting the CSIC's commitment to open science and research integrity.

This paper investigates the inconsistencies present in peer review by analysing the evaluation patterns of reviewers involved in an educational award in the Arab Gulf Country States. A statistical approach was used to assess the degree of variation in scores assigned to 270 manuscripts reviewed by three different groups of reviewers. The study revealed significant differences in the evaluations, suggesting that at least two reviewers often showed discrepancies in their assessments despite using the standardised evaluation form. The observed discrepancies appear to reflect underlying complexities related to reviewer perspectives and evaluation standards, highlighting challenges in achieving uniformity across assessments. Additionally, it proposes a model to enhance peer review consistency, including methods for score adjustment and calibration to mitigate reviewer differences. The goal is to offer practical recommendations for improving the fairness, transparency and reliability of peer review systems, contributing to the ongoing development of academic publishing practices. For audiences beyond the academic community including publishers, editors and academic librarians, these findings show how practical statistical tools can strengthen peer review and build greater trust in academic publishing.