Learned Publishing最新文献

This mixed-methods study evaluates the efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted reviewer selection in academic publishing across diverse disciplines. Twenty journal editors assessed AI-generated reviewer recommendations for a manuscript. The AI system achieved a 42% overlap with editors' selections and demonstrated a significant improvement in time efficiency, reducing selection time by 73%. Editors found that 37% of AI-suggested reviewers who were not part of their initial selection were indeed suitable. The system's performance varied across disciplines, with higher accuracy in STEM fields (Cohen's d = 0.68). Qualitative feedback revealed an appreciation for the AI's ability to identify lesser-known experts but concerns about its grasp of interdisciplinary work. Ethical considerations, including potential algorithmic bias and privacy issues, were highlighted. The study concludes that while AI shows promise in enhancing reviewer selection efficiency and broadening the reviewer pool, it requires human oversight to address limitations in understanding nuanced disciplinary contexts. Future research should focus on larger-scale longitudinal studies and developing ethical frameworks for AI integration in peer-review processes.

Altmetric.com and PlumX are two prominent tools for collecting alternative metrics data. This study has two main objectives: first, to evaluate how the choice between Altmetric.com and PlumX affects the results of alternative metrics analysis, and second, to investigate the social impact of ‘hot papers’ through the alternative metrics data provided by these platforms. We employed a descriptive and exploratory approach, gathering common alternative metrics from 4236 hot papers using both Altmetric.com and PlumX. The data collected included various alternative metrics such as policy mentions, Mendeley readers, Wikipedia mentions, blog mentions, Facebook mentions, and news mentions, in addition to citation counts from Scopus. We conducted descriptive statistics and inferential analyses to examine the relationships between citations and alternative metrics, as well as to compare the data obtained from both platforms. Our findings indicate that PlumX has broader coverage of hot papers compared to Altmetric.com. While the mean and individual values of alternative metrics differ between the two platforms, the median and geometric mean are similar. Both Altmetric.com and PlumX demonstrate that publications with higher citation counts tend to receive more online attention. Notably, all alternative metrics for Immunology and Chemistry showed statistically significant differences between the two platforms, whereas in Mathematics, alternative metrics (with the exception of Mendeley readers) did not exhibit significant differences. The findings suggest that researchers should be aware of potential variations in data captured by different alternative metrics platforms. Additionally, interpreting alternative metrics data requires caution, considering the research fields and the specific platform used.

Facing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, medical publishers rose to the occasion, moving to make their full portfolio of COVID-19–related research available to read for free and expediting peer review and production processes. With such a rapid transition from paper submission to publication, however, concerns also arose regarding whether the quality of the research publication process was being affected. This article seeks to document the transformation of medical publishers' practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and briefly discuss where they may go from here. For this goal, a literature search was performed in PubMed at several points to identify papers that reported early trends in how medical publishers handled COVID-19 research.

The Harbingers study of early career researchers (ECRs), their work life and scholarly communications, began by studying generational—Millennial—change (c.2016), then moved to pandemic change (c.2020) and is now investigating another potential agent of change: artificial intelligence (2024–). We report here on a substantial scoping pilot study that looks at the impact of AI on the scholarly communications of international ECRs and, extends this to the arts and humanities. It aims to fill the knowledge gap concerning ECRs whose millennial mindset may render them especially open to change and, as the research workhorses they are, very much in the frontline. The data was collected via in-depth interviews in China, Malaysia, Poland, Portugal, Spain and (selectively) the United Kingdom/United States. The data show ECRs to be thinking, probing and, in some cases, experimenting with AI. There was a general acceptance that AI will be responsible for the growth of low-quality scientific papers, which could lead to a decline in the quality of research. Scholarly integrity and ethics were a big concern with issues of authenticity, plagiarism, copyright and poor citation practices raised. The most widespread belief was AI would prove to be a transformative force and would exacerbate existing scholarly disparities and inequalities.

Gold Open Access (OA) journals are crucial for scholarly communication, highlighting the need for a thorough evaluation of their academic influence on different research fields. This study leverages the InCites platform to examine article-level characteristics relating to 22 Essential Science Indicators (ESI) research fields, with a focus on the dynamics of gold OA articles, including gold OA uptake in the Chinese mainland and gold OA adoption in the domestic English-language academic journal publishing of the Chinese mainland. The findings reveal that disparities in gold OA adoption across 22 ESI fields are more pronounced in the Chinese mainland compared with the world scenario. In the Chinese mainland, there is a significant polarization in gold OA publishing volumes across different ESI fields, particularly in Chemistry, Clinical Medicine, and Engineering. This study builds on the understanding of OA citation advantage (OACA) by incorporating gold OA publishing volume into a two-dimensional framework, resulting in the development of a “distance” metric. It further categorizes gold OA citation effects into four quadrants: positive citation effects (quadrants A and B) and negative citation effects (quadrants C and D), based on category normalized citation impact (CNCI) and journal normalized citation impact (JNCI) indicators from the InCites database. The findings underscore the importance of developing tailored strategies to address field-specific challenges and promote gold OA dynamics in the Chinese mainland; while prioritizing high-quality gold OA journals is essential for fostering gold OA development in the rest of the world.

During the COVID pandemic, some commentators thought that early career researchers (ECRs) would become a ‘lost generation’. Yet the Harbingers (H-2) longitudinal study, which followed ECRs for 2 years during the pandemic found that ECRs took things in their stride. More than 2 years on, we returned, as part of the AI stage of the Harbingers study (H-3), to see what has transpired and interviewed nearly 70 ECRs from six countries as part of an exploratory study. We found that: (1) only one in six ECRS thought they were suffering from the residual impacts of the pandemic, with increased workload creating the greatest stress; (2) working remotely, digitally and more flexibly was thought by many to be the biggest dividend delivered, making the job more desirable and competitive; (3) an apparent growth in jobs and promotions (tenures) confirmed the bounce-back. Given the modest size of the study, analysis by country has to be undertaken with caution, but China, where political and economic factors have stifled any bounce-back, stands out for special attention in a future full-blown study. Finally, the study yielded informed and considered views that the long-term impact of the pandemic appears to be beneficial rather than disadvantageous.

Starting from July 2020 at the University of Milan, one of the largest and most important Italian universities, the first transformative agreements with some major international scientific publishers have come into effect. These agreements allow corresponding authors to publish in open access without directly bearing the publication costs. From the perspective of corresponding authors, these agreements could increase the dissemination of their scientific output and, thereby, the impact on the scientific community. However, transformative agreements are part of a rapidly changing publishing market that already includes open access articles in both so-called ‘Diamond’ and ‘Gold’ journals. The aim of our study is to understand to what extent the positioning of journals in impact rankings, the disciplinary field of the article, together with the career stage of the corresponding author, influence the choice to publish in a journal covered by transformative agreements rather than in other open access or hybrid journals. The results of our investigation draw attention to the importance of rules in Italy governing scientific careers in different disciplinary fields and potential unforeseen effects of policies favouring open access.