Learned Publishing最新文献

This paper aims to enhance the understanding of the role of special issues in the evolving landscape of academic publishing, offering insights for publishers, editors, guest editors, and researchers, including how new technologies influence transparency in publishing processes, open access models, and metrics for success. Based upon original analysis, the paper also discusses the importance of special issues and opportunities to support diversity, equity, and inclusivity in special issue publishing programmes. The goal is to contribute to the discussion of maintaining research integrity through special issues, acknowledging their significance in scholarly communication, while offering suggestions for the future.

This paper studies awareness and use of author identifier services (AIDs) in the French academic community and explores needs and forms of support required for these tools, using a national questionnaire survey. ArXivID, IdHAL, ORCID, ResearcherID and Scopus Author ID were investigated. A total of 6125 people completed the questionnaire in full. The results of this survey show that discipline and age play an important role in French researchers' familiarity with AIDs. IdHAL and ORCID were by far the two best known AIDs, probably because they have been promoted by institutions in France for several years. French researchers use AIDs mainly to respond to external requests (e.g., to submit an article or a research project), while, surprisingly, few use them to ‘facilitate their work’. When French researchers were asked about their needs and the form of support required for AIDs, more than 30% of them said they either required an introduction to or practical training in these tools. The results of this national survey should help stakeholders to adapt their policies and to guide and support researchers more efficiently in the use of these tools.

Academic papers are essential for researchers to communicate their work to their peers and industry experts. Quality research is published in prestigious scientific journals, and is considered as part of the hiring and promotion criteria at leading universities. Scientific journals conduct impartial and anonymous peer reviews of submitted manuscripts; however, individuals involved in this process may encounter issues related to the duration, impartiality, and transparency of these reviews. To explore these concerns, we created a questionnaire based on a comprehensive review of related literature and expert opinions, which was distributed to all stakeholders (authors, reviewers, and editors) who participated in the peer-review process from a variety of countries and disciplines. Their opinions on the primary issues during the process and suggestions for improvement were collected. The data were then analysed based on various groups, such as gender, country of residence, and contribution type, using appropriate multivariate statistical techniques to determine the perceptions and experiences of participants in the peer-review process. The results showed that unethical behaviour was not uncommon and that editors and experienced reviewers encountered it more frequently. Women and academics from Türkiye were more likely to experience ethical violations and perceived them as more ethically severe. Incentives and stakeholder involvement were seen as ways to enhance the quality and impartiality of peer review. The scale developed can serve as a useful tool for addressing difficulties in the peer-review process and improving its effectiveness and performance.