Learned Publishing最新文献

In this article, we explore the uses and awareness of the ORCID identifier in the French national research community using a questionnaire survey. This questionnaire has been completed in full by 6125 researchers, amounting to approximately 3.2% of the French national population of researchers. We asked the respondents about their reasons for creating an ORCID identifier, how they had discovered ORCID, what the characteristics of their ORCID profile were (privacy, completion of the various sections, etc.) and how they used it (context, motivations and obstacles). We also asked them about their knowledge of the ORCID ecosystem. We found that researchers overall reported a concrete, pragmatic knowledge of the ORCID identifier. The political and strategic framework remains generally unclear, or is unfamiliar, whether in terms of the objectives or the general interest of this tool. Researchers often only perceive the most obvious functionalities in their daily work, such as having an online profile. The less immediate or less individual features, such as being able to distinguish themselves from other researchers, are therefore not as well known and used. Our results should help stakeholders in France and internationally to adapt their policies and to support researchers more efficiently in the use of the ORCID identifier.

Early career researchers (ECRs) are in an ideal position to soothsay. Yet, much of what we know about the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) comes from vested interest groups, such as publishers, tech companies and industry leaders, which are strong on hyperbole, are superficial and, at best, narrow surveys. This paper seeks to redress this by providing deep empirical data from researchers, allowing us to hear researchers' views and ‘voices’. The data comes from a project, which focuses on the impact of AI on scholarly communications. From this study, we report on the perceived transformations to the scholarly communications system by AI and other forces. We were especially interested in discovering what future ECRs foresaw for the established pillars of the system—journals and libraries. The interview-based study covers a convenience sample of 91 ECRs from all disciplines and half a dozen countries. The main findings being that while the large majority thought there would be a transformation there was no consensus as to what a transformation would look like, but there was agreement on it being one shaped by AI. The future appears rosy for journals, but less so for libraries and, importantly, for most ECRs, too.

African women researchers represent a minority within Africa's scientific community, accounting for 29.3%—a figure significantly lower than in other regions: 39% in Europe, 41% in Asia, 43% in South America, and 44% in North America. Moreover, this low participation rate masks intra-African disparities, with some Sub-Saharan African countries exhibiting particularly low percentages, such as Chad (3.35%), Guinea (9.81%) and Togo (11.47%), reflecting significant gender imbalances (UNESCO). This study examines the participation of African women in scientific publications, focusing on differences between social sciences and exact sciences, as well as regional disparities between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. It aims to identify key challenges and propose actions to enhance the presence of African women researchers in high-impact journals. Using a mixed-methods approach, the study analyses a micro-level database of African publications from 2010 (30,455 articles) and 2022 (137,566 articles) retrieved from Web of Science (WoS) indexed journals. Additionally, qualitative insights are drawn from interviews with African women researchers. The quantitative analysis reveals a modest increase in female authorship from 29% in 2010 to 32% in 2022, aligning with UNESCO's statistics (2022). While progress has been observed, disparities persist across scientific disciplines. Notably, female participation in exact sciences has grown significantly, with Engineering and Technology rising from 16% to 21%, Physical Sciences from 19% to 23%, and Life Sciences and Biomedicine from 29% to 35%. In contrast, gains in social sciences were more modest, with Arts and Humanities remaining stable at 28% and Social Sciences increasing slightly from 26% to 28%. Regional variations are also evident, with South Africa and Egypt leading in contributions. Qualitative interviews highlight barriers such as gender bias, financial constraints, and limited institutional support, which continue to hinder women's academic progression. This study is the first to conduct a granular article-level analysis of African women's participation in WoS-indexed journals, employing innovative methods to infer author gender and utilising text mining techniques for qualitative analysis. Its findings provide critical insights for policymakers and academic institutions striving to promote gender equity in African research.

This study aimed to investigate the awareness of the editors-in-chief as the leaders of the publishing team of the journals indexed in the health sciences field in the national index (TR-Index) about Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the publishing field. The data were collected using Google Forms from editors-in-chief between January and June 2023. The study was completed with 55 editors-in-chief. The first three publishing areas of the articles are medicine, nursing, and health sciences. The result shows that the articles published by TR-Index journals contribute to all SDGs. The goals to which the most contributions were made are SDG3 (good health and well-being), SDG4 (quality education), and SDG5 (gender equality). Four of these journals have signed the SDGs Publisher Compact. The SDGs awareness of journal editors was high, and editors' awareness does not vary according to journals' (such as publication language, SDGs publication policy, knowledge about the SDG Publisher Compact, etc.) and editors' characteristics (such as age, gender, title etc.). Journal editors and publication policies will contribute to raising the awareness of researchers, readers, and other stakeholders about the SDGs.

Stompor, T., Pampel, H., Boltze-Fütterer, J., and Rusch, B.. 2025. “ DeepGreen—A Data Hub for the Distribution of Scholarly Articles From Publishers to Open Access Repositories in Germany.” Learned Publishing 38: e70000. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.70000.

In the paper by Stompor et al., “Heinz Pampel” has been listed as corresponding author.

We apologise for this error.

The Harbingers study of early career researchers (ECRs) and their work life and scholarly communications began by studying generational—Millennial—change (H-1), then moved to pandemic change (H-2) and is now investigating another change agent—artificial intelligence (AI). This paper from the study constitutes a deep dive into the peer review attitudes and practices of 91 international ECRs from all disciplines. Depth interviews were the main means by which data was collected, and questions covered ECRs as reviewers, authors and readers, and are described in their own words. Main findings are: (1) ECRs proved to be a highly experienced in peer review; (2) There is more trust in peer review than distrust in it, but there are concerns; (3) Peer review is something that arts and humanities ECRs are unfamiliar with or much concerned about; (4) A sizeable majority of ECRs thought peer review could be improved, with anonymity/double-blind reviewing topping the list; (5) The majority view was that AI will have an impact on peer review and that it would be beneficial; (6) little has changed since the last Harbingers study, except for AI, which is seen to be transformative. We believe that few studies have drilled down so deeply and widely in respect to ECRs.

The evolution of data journals and the increase in data papers call for associated peer review, which is intricately linked yet distinct from traditional scientific paper review. This study investigates the data paper review guidelines of 22 scholarly journals that publish data papers and analyses 131 data papers' review reports from the journal Data. Peer review is an essential part of scholarly publishing. Although the 22 data journals employ disparate review models, their review purposes and requirements exhibit similarities. Journal guidelines provide authors and reviewers with comprehensive references for reviewing, which cover the entire life cycle of data. Reviewer attitudes predominantly encompass Suggestion, Inquiry, Criticism and Compliment during the specific review process, focusing on 18 key targets including manuscript writing, diagram presentation, data process and analysis, references and review and so forth. In addition, objective statements and other general opinions are also identified. The findings show the distinctive characteristics of data publication assessment and summarise the main concerns of journals and reviewers regarding the evaluation of data papers.

One of the cornerstones of publication integrity is the thorough maintenance of the scientific record to ensure the trustworthiness of its content. This includes strict and transparent record-keeping when implementing post-publication changes through a clearly visible corrigendum or erratum, which provides details of the changes and the reasons for them (ICMJE 2024).

However, such record-keeping is not always practised as stealth changes, post-publication changes to the scientific literature without any accompanying note, have been observed. One notable kind of a stealth change is a stealth retraction: published papers simply disappearing from the website of a journal without a formal retraction notice (Teixeira da Silva 2016; Teixeira da Silva and Daly 2024).

Besides stealth retractions, a second problematic type of stealth change exists in the scientific literature: stealth corrections. We define a stealth correction as at least one post-publication change made to a scientific article, without providing a correction note or any other indicator that the publication was temporarily or permanently altered.

Stealth corrections in the scientific literature have occasionally been described by online blogs (Bimler 2021; Schneider 2020), but the scientific literature itself has yet to address the numerous stealth corrections in its own corpus. In this article, we provide examples of such stealth corrections.

We found a total of 131 published articles that were affected by stealth corrections, across a variety of large and small publishers (Table 1). In most cases, the content of the articles was changed (Table 2). An overview of all stealth corrections (# 1-131) can be found in Table S1, which also contains the links to all accompanying PubPeer posts for additional detail. Five articles with stealth corrections eventually received an official correction notice and 17 articles were reverted to their original version (Table S1). Nine expressions of concern were published, and 11 articles were eventually retracted (Table S1). Additionally, seven book chapters were removed (Table S1).

The stealth corrections presented in this paper demonstrate a fundamental and mostly ignored problem in the scientific literature. Correct documentation and transparency are of the utmost importance to uphold scientific integrity and the trustworthiness of science. Post-publication changes need to be clear for readers to understand if, and why, changes have been made. However, little attention is paid to post-publication alterations. For example, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provides clear flowcharts indicating that a published correction is needed in case of: post-publication plagiarism (# 20) (COPE 2021b), post-publication author removal (# 2-9) (COPE 2021a) or inappropriate image manipulation in a published article (